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

[gramsjdg]

I've only been working in the historic preservation field for a year, but I think there is a pretty clear cut case for demolition here. There are far better examples of post-war buildings in NYC and the point of architectural preservation is not to preserve all the structures from a particular architectural period, but rather to preserve the best examples; 270 Park Ave is not one- (with respect to the historically notable architects). Is this building eligible for the national register? Sure, but its not good enough in comparison to structures such as the Seagram building.

Take it down.

That being said, the supertall that replaces it ought to be of equal or better quality from both a materials and design standpoint.

[WhatTheHeck5205]

Originally Posted by gramsjdg

That being said, the supertall that replaces it ought to be of equal or better quality from both a materials and design standpoint.

This point CANNOT be emphasized enough. NYC should really have some kind of architectural review board—made up of licensed architects, not politicians or NIMBY activists—to ensure that new development is of the same or higher quality as what it replaces. This could actually replace a lot of our current zoning laws, which try to minimize the impact of new buildings by restricting their size, with a system that essentially makes all new development as-of-right provided it passes muster in terms of overall design and quality of materials.

Anyways, on the subject of 270 Park, I agree—it’s a good, but not great, building, and as much as I’ll miss it, I’m not opposed to tearing it down—provided the new building is equally as good.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by WhatTheHeck5205

This point CANNOT be emphasized enough. NYC should really have some kind of architectural review board—made up of licensed architects

Ironically, when the midtown east rezoning was first proposed under Bloomberg, there was a design provision, meaning it would have to undergo a design review.
That was dropped the second time around.

But as far as having someone decide what gets to be built in the city - it doesn't matter if it's a licensed architect or not (every design will have architects working on it).
Everyone's opinion on what is good, great, or even decent architecture differs. For that reason, buildings need to be designed and built without restriction (obviously developers will have a say).

We don't all agree with architects' designs, no reason to assume we will all agree with what they call good architecture.



Meanwhile, this building looms at the end of Vanderbilt Avenue awaiting its fate. But in a couple of years, we should have something above ground to look at, even as One Vanderbilt wraps up.

JUNE 5, 2018

[JMKeynes]

I expect that the King of Wall Street will build a castle taller than One Vanderbilt.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by WhatTheHeck5205

This point CANNOT be emphasized enough. NYC should really have some kind of architectural review board—made up of licensed architects, not politicians or NIMBY activists—to ensure that new development is of the same or higher quality as what it replaces.

God no, that would be absolutely awful. Design by committee would be the worst possible outcome. NYC already has that in landmarks districts, BTW, and the results are invariably banal.

And the Department of City Planning already has licensed architects, and really no politicians or activists. You set the zoning code, you don't prescribe design.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by JMKeynes

I expect that the King of Wall Street will build a castle taller than One Vanderbilt.

I would hope so. Park Ave. deserves something taller than 1,400 ft. range, as we already have 432 Park and One Vanderbilt.

[JMKeynes]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I would hope so. Park Ave. deserves something taller than 1,400 ft. range, as we already have 432 Park and One Vanderbilt.

I agree. This will be quite a sight.

[aquablue]

Originally Posted by Crawford

God no, that would be absolutely awful. Design by committee would be the worst possible outcome. NYC already has that in landmarks districts, BTW, and the results are invariably banal.

And the Department of City Planning already has licensed architects, and really no politicians or activists. You set the zoning code, you don't prescribe design.

Something along the lines of what London has, and that city produces fine buildings. You can't deny London has put up some of the highest quality stuff recently and it has a design review.

[NYer34]

Originally Posted by aquablue

Something along the lines of what London has, and that city produces fine buildings. You can't deny London has put up some of the highest quality stuff recently and it has a design review.

I've often thought a design review board would be a great idea - keep the crap out.

But the one instance we have of the city setting 'design' parameters for a building was an utter travesty: Amanda Burden reducing Tour Verre's height by 200 feet, so it wouldn't "compete" with the ESB.

Of course, that was immediately followed by the bottom-shelf 'architecture' of 425 Park Ave. going up at 1400+ feet ... and Tour Verre remaining chopped down to 1000 feet.

I'd rather we just have a blanket landmark protection for all pre-WWII structures. That's really where the line between quality, pre-modern architecture and the internationalist crap we've had ever since, was drawn. Let the 270 Parks of the world come down for taller internationalist boxes, keep near-sighted city review boards out of architecture, and retain the city's history, character and best architecture.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I would hope so. Park Ave. deserves something taller than 1,400 ft. range, as we already have 432 Park and One Vanderbilt.

Not exactly stellar architecture either.

[The Best Forumer]

Originally Posted by gramsjdg

I've only been working in the historic preservation field for a year, but I think there is a pretty clear cut case for demolition here. There are far better examples of post-war buildings in NYC and the point of architectural preservation is not to preserve all the structures from a particular architectural period, but rather to preserve the best examples; 270 Park Ave is not one- (with respect to the historically notable architects). Is this building eligible for the national register? Sure, but its not good enough in comparison to structures such as the Seagram building.

Take it down.

That being said, the supertall that replaces it ought to be of equal or better quality from both a materials and design standpoint.

I agree with you. But who would determine which design is good or bad?

[Submariner]

Originally Posted by The Best Forumer

I agree with you. But who would determine which design is good or bad?

Gale Brewer, I’m sure.

[Busy Bee]

What they need is a "council of good taste" composed of, I don't know, maybe a group of obsessive people that spend unhealthy amounts of time reading and debating architecture, urbanism and development on online message boards???

[WhatTheHeck5205]

Originally Posted by NYer34

I've often thought a design review board would be a great idea - keep the crap out.

But the one instance we have of the city setting 'design' parameters for a building was an utter travesty: Amanda Burden reducing Tour Verre's height by 200 feet, so it wouldn't "compete" with the ESB.

Of course, that was immediately followed by the bottom-shelf 'architecture' of 425 Park Ave. going up at 1400+ feet ... and Tour Verre remaining chopped down to 1000 feet.

I'd rather we just have a blanket landmark protection for all pre-WWII structures. That's really where the line between quality, pre-modern architecture and the internationalist crap we've had ever since, was drawn. Let the 270 Parks of the world come down for taller internationalist boxes, keep near-sighted city review boards out of architecture, and retain the city's history, character and best architecture.

You raise a good point re: the whole Verre/Amanda Burden debacle. That was why I specified having licensed architects on the board—my hope is that they’d have more understanding of the design rationale for a proposal being a certain height. I do like your idea of just an overall level of additional protection for buildings beyond a certain age, because I agree that there definitely is an architectural turning point that occurred after WWII (and although I think 270 Park is one of the better buildings to go up after that, it was still built on the wrong side of that turning point overall). Rather than trying to somehow compensate for the loss of historic buildings, we should really just better protect them in the first place.

[NYer34]

Originally Posted by WhatTheHeck5205

Rather than trying to somehow compensate for the loss of historic buildings, we should really just better protect them in the first place.

So true.

[pico44]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

What they need is a "council of good taste" composed of, I don't know, maybe a group of obsessive people that spend unhealthy amounts of time reading and debating architecture, urbanism and development on online message boards???

Oh that'd just be great!?! Leave all these super important decisions up to a big group of losers!

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

What they need is a "council of good taste" composed of, I don't know, maybe a group of obsessive people that spend unhealthy amounts of time reading and debating architecture, urbanism and development on online message boards???

Surely anyone who would sit on such a council would do that and more. Bad idea. Let architects do their work. We won't like every outcome, and not everyone will be pleased anyway.

Originally Posted by JMKeynes

I expect that the King of Wall Street will build a castle taller than One Vanderbilt.

If they do, it better not be a flat-roofed tower. We've already got CPT killing the vibes. It will be interesting to see which firm gets to design this one.



https://www.instagram.com/p/Bj2eyKml...artino.stierli

[JMKeynes]

Does anyone know if this will include the small, adjacent building on Madison which includes the Chase branch at ground level?

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by JMKeynes

Does anyone know if this will include the small, adjacent building on Madison which includes the Chase branch at ground level?

It's the same building and lot, so I don't see why not. Chase just has a lowrise section fronting Madison.

[JMKeynes]

That's good news. It's actually a pretty big lot.