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

[BrickellBased]

Interesting effects of city planning and zone on real estate economics. I am sure this case will be studied for a many years to come.

The Class A out-performance has been playing out in Chicago as well which hasn't suffered from the same zoning issues as NY I don't believe. Salesforce broke ground on a new tower there after the pandemic started. Several other major towers were completed around that time as well, 110 Wacker, BMO Tower - several other new office space in Fulton Market has kicked off since the pandemic too. And there is a big project to convert old vacant office space to residential now.

I think a lot of it is once a new standard is set, basically all of the previous stock becomes antiquated and you're almost starting from 0 again. If you're not in Hudson Yards or in a new building you're 2nd tier.

Also I think there's an element of induced demand - once people see the shiny new developments then what was Class A becomes Class B. Or maybe now there is a new class A+ or something.

Originally Posted by NYguy

^ Good look at the 3 designs.





The problem with New York is, even though there is a lot of office space, and a lot of office buildings, most of them - especially in Midtown East - are 80 years or older. New York hasn't really done a good job of renewing it's office supply, mainly due to zoning restrictions. Midtown East was zoned down, so most of the office buildings that could or would have been replaced would have had to be replaced with smaller buildings. Which was ridiculous. That all changed with the Midtown East rezoning. Meanwhile, the Hudson Yards was the city's effort to provide a space for the kinds of new office towers companies demand, it has proved more successful than really anyone thought.

Which brings us back to Midtown East. The largest, and really the only new significant office tower under construction is 270 Park Avenue, the headquarters of JPMC. It can't really be counted as an option, since it will entirely belong to JPMC.

Citadel, being the prime tenant at 350 Park, will get the best floors, and I'm sure some of the upper floors. The heavyweights like to be the anchor tenants in the new buildings. The smaller, upper floors of new buildings are some of the most expensive in the city. If you need a half million sf of space or more, you really want to be an anchor tenant in the early stages.

But when people wonder why new office towers are going up in the city, with a high vacancy rate, the issue is what's in demand. Not all office space is the same, and it's the newer office space that is in demand.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by BrickellBased

The Class A out-performance has been playing out in Chicago as well which hasn't suffered from the same zoning issues as NY I don't believe. Salesforce broke ground on a new tower there after the pandemic started. Several other major towers were completed around that time as well, 110 Wacker, BMO Tower - several other new office space in Fulton Market has kicked off since the pandemic too. And there is a big project to convert old vacant office space to residential now.

I think a lot of it is once a new standard is set, basically all of the previous stock becomes antiquated and you're almost starting from 0 again. If you're not in Hudson Yards or in a new building you're 2nd tier.

Also I think there's an element of induced demand - once people see the shiny new developments then what was Class A becomes Class B. Or maybe now there is a new class A+ or something.

One key is that they want to convert the older office buildings into residential. I've read where one landlord has been relocating companies into other buildings. As a developer, you know which towers can stand the test of the market, and which ones are better off as conversions. But another tier complicating matters is the fact that office buildings are well above the maximum FAR for residential in the state. They are trying to remedy that now, though with small gestures. But in the meantime, those older buildings are just driving up the vacancy rates. I saw a case, with SL Green I believe, where they are planning to hollow out and seal off a portion of a building to convert it to residential.

Park Avenue is ripe for redevelopment of some of the older structures.

[TREPYE]

Originally Posted by ChiND

While every city in America can’t build their traditional ten-story office tower upon a fifteen-story, exposed concrete garage, the Financial Capital of the World continues to build stunning supertowers!

All hail Ken Griffen and Jamie D. Next up to the plate: Scott Rechler!

The design is basically half of the 270 Park Ave north-south massing.... without the cool subtle tapering effect from east-west massing. Very blasé and mundane.

More so, at 1600' height its bound to have the horrific skyline-killing effects of downtown's 1 Chase Plaza which in the 60s blunted skyline views of 70 Pine Street and 40 Wall Streets beautiful and graceful spire massings. In this case this will blunt off the crowns and spired of 1 Vanderbilt, 270 Park, (and hopefully) 175 Park Ave.

[TonyNYC]

More so, at 1600' height its bound to have the horrific skyline-killing effects of downtown's 1 Chase Plaza which in the 60s blunted skyline views of 70 Pine Street and 40 Wall Streets beautiful and graceful spire massings. In this case this will blunt off the crowns and spired of 1 Vanderbilt, 270 Park, (and hopefully) 175 Park Ave.[/QUOTE]

Everyone has their own opinion... I think it looks great and fits in well with the other towers on Park.

As for blunting off the crowns and spires.. 270 Park has no effect on those buildings from the East, West and South... just from the north.

[TKD]

Originally Posted by TREPYE

The design is basically half of the 270 Park Ave north-south massing.... without the cool subtle tapering effect from east-west massing.

It is tapered on the East/West sides though.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by TREPYE

The design is basically half of the 270 Park Ave north-south massing.... without the cool subtle tapering effect from east-west massing. Very blasé and mundane.

More so, at 1600' height its bound to have the horrific skyline-killing effects of downtown's 1 Chase Plaza which in the 60s blunted skyline views of 70 Pine Street and 40 Wall Streets beautiful and graceful spire massings. In this case this will blunt off the crowns and spired of 1 Vanderbilt, 270 Park, (and hopefully) 175 Park Ave.

Originally Posted by TKD

It is tapered on the East/West sides though.

Either way, it would be no worse than 432 Park or Central Park Tower.

[wpolom]

Why nobody in New York City has surpassed the height of 1,776 FT of the One World Trade Center Tower with all these mega towers? Is there an unofficial rule not to do so?

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by wpolom

Why nobody in New York City has surpassed the height of 1,776 FT of the One World Trade Center Tower with all these mega towers? Is there an unofficial rule not to do so?

That’s not how it works. The likelihood that NYC builds a tower higher than 1,776 ft is the same as it would be if the FT didn’t exist. Of all the supertall towers currently existing or planned, there’s no logical reason any of them should be higher than 1,776 ft. In New York, you can build to the allowable FAR.

[Fabricio JF]

wow this project is booming overseas.

Discover the 62-story skyscraper that will change New York's skyline.

New York Mayor hopes the project will help in the city's recovery

https://www.cnnbrasil.com.br/lifesty...-de-nova-york/

According to the text, it has an impact on bringing meaning such as iconic buildings Flatiron, Chrysler, Empire State and OWTC.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Fabricio JF

wow this project is booming overseas.



https://www.cnnbrasil.com.br/lifesty...-de-nova-york/

According to the text, it has an impact on bringing meaning such as iconic buildings Flatiron, Chrysler, Empire State and OWTC.

Yeah, it’s been in the news a lot lately. The push from the mayor has significance, even though there are other towers planned. This one just has practical matters to get out of the way before going vertical. If they could start construction today, they would. As it is now, we’re at least a couple of years out.

[Fabricio JF]

I have to confess that 270 Park Avenue is also quite impressive braced with setbacks, a graceful and majestic triangular shape.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Fabricio JF

I have to confess that 270 Park Avenue is also quite impressive braced with setbacks, a graceful and majestic triangular shape.

That it is. Hopefully the details on 350 will prove just as sharp as its siblings at 425 and 270.

[Xing Lin]

Update to my rendering over one of NYGuy's photos:

And the design evolution to date:

[NYguy]

^ Nice! Thanks.

[ChiND]

This building is gorgeous. I wonder if its pinnacle will exceed Extell’s Central Park Tower’s and 175 Park’s.

[MAC123]

^It's 1,600 ft tall. So yes

[ChiND]

Originally Posted by MAC123

^It's 1,600 ft tall. So yes

I think that the article quoted by NY Guy said “nearly” 1,600’ tall. Does that mean 1,550, 1,590, etc. I hope that it’s the new tallest.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by MAC123

^It's 1,600 ft tall. So yes

Originally Posted by ChiND

I think that the article quoted by NY Guy said “nearly” 1,600’ tall. Does that mean 1,550, 1,590, etc. I hope that it’s the new tallest.

The tower will be about 1,600 feet tall, a spokesperson for the development team told CoStar News. That would rank it as the city’s second-tallest building, among existing skyscrapers, just after the 1,776-foot-tall One World Trade Center in lower Manhattan.

Meanwhile, JPMorgan Chase is building its 1,388-foot, 60-story global headquarters at 270 Park Ave. Developer RXR also plans to co-develop 175 Park Ave., a project billed as a nearly 1,600-foot-tall tower with the highest occupied office floor and the highest hotel in the Western Hemisphere.

That could mean exactly 1,600 ft, or maybe a little more, or maybe a little less. I think it’s probably a little higher. We are a long way from construction, so I don’t doubt that number could change. Especially if they’re not finished with air rights.



Meanwhile:


• Video Link


I expect the top of 350 will offer a similar setup at the top, with views all around.

[ChiND]

That’s the article I referred to. Hopefully, it will have the city’s tallest roof. That seems likely.

That’s the Bloomberg interview with JD I had commented about. He’s amazing!

[SkyHigher]

I wonder when the other side of the street is going to get something big...425 Park should have been so much taller. Shame.

Also is it possible 175 Park going back to something approaching it's original height?