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

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by ChiND

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

Why?

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

They would have to resubmit the application, not sure how complicated of a process that is but I think it's fine at its current height especially if this one will be taller.

[ChiND]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

Why?




They would have to resubmit the application, not sure how complicated of a process that is but I think it's fine at its current height especially if this one will be taller.

Because the City’s tallest roof currently is 1,550’, and this will be around 1,600’.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by ChiND

Because the City’s tallest roof currently is 1,550’, and this will be around 1,600’.

Ah sorry, misread. Exciting stuff.

[ChiND]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

Ah sorry, misread. Exciting stuff.

I agree.

[Xing Lin]

A couple of views of this design on the skyline (at the 1450' height shown in the renderings):

[NYguy]

^ Nice! Keep it going.

Originally Posted by 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?

Exactly what are you replacing on the other side? 425 Park Avenue has a small footprint, and was built under the old zoning, which is why they kept the lower structure.

As far as 175 approaching it’s taller height, that would be a minor approval, since the studies were all done for the greater height. But the lower tower has the same sq footage and number of floors as the higher height. I’m not sure why they would push it higher now.

[MAC123]

^ Yeah there's no real practical reason but man screw that. Let me see some human hubris and pride and get that original height back.

[Zerton]

It's so cool to see Midtown NY break that ~700 foot ceiling it had for decades (apart from ESB of course). And so quickly.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by MAC123

^ Yeah there's no real practical reason but man screw that. Let me see some human hubris and pride and get that original height back.

We could use some of that. I don’t doubt there’s a developer somewhere in the city dreaming up plans to do something like that. But building in New York is such a practical nature, especially considering the costs and time it would take to make it happen. It’s a lot easier to plan for something like that in the middle of nowhere, where there are lots of empty lots to develop, and people actually welcome development.

[DCReid]

Originally Posted by Zerton

It's so cool to see Midtown NY break that ~700 foot ceiling it had for decades (apart from ESB of course). And so quickly.

Yes, and as I recall just a few years ago when 53W53 was proposed that it was chopped down from 1250 to 1050 ft because the main approval committee persons said the top was unfinished and it should not share the space with the ESB, and other committee and council persons saying it was mid-block. It is a nice addition to the skyline but is now mostly obscured by the taller buildings. It would have been a wonderful skyline enhancer if it was built at 1250 feet.

[ChiND]

Hopefully, this statement is accurate!

https://www.globalconstructionreview...-tallest-tower

“… New York City Mayor Eric Adams has unveiled Foster + Partners’ design for a 487m-tall office tower in Manhattan, set to be the second tallest in the city after One World Trade Centre.”

New York mayor unveils city’s second tallest tower
David Rogers
29.04.24

[SkyHigher]

Originally Posted by NYguy

^ Nice! Keep it going.







Exactly what are you replacing on the other side? 425 Park Avenue has a small footprint, and was built under the old zoning, which is why they kept the lower structure.

I was just asking whether any potential future plots on the other side of the street, whilst at the same time bemoaning an extremely elegant building such as 425 Park wasn't so much taller.

Also agree with the comments about 53W53. Devastating.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by DCReid

Yes, and as I recall just a few years ago when 53W53 was proposed that it was chopped down from 1250 to 1050 ft because the main approval committee persons said the top was unfinished and it should not share the space with the ESB, and other committee and council persons saying it was mid-block. It is a nice addition to the skyline but is now mostly obscured by the taller buildings. It would have been a wonderful skyline enhancer if it was built at 1250 feet.

That was from the lovely Amanda Burden. The tower, as-of-right would have been 1,083 ft. But with the design that required a number of special permits (not a boxy building with setbacks), it needed approval. But you know that it was silly to knock the design, because city planning took the unusual step of “locking in” the design as it was. Minus 200 ft of course. But none ofvthat applies here, or anywhere else in the city for that matter. There are no height limits, andceven if there were, no doubt the mayor would push it beyond.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by SkyHigher

I was just asking whether any potential future plots on the other side of the street, whilst at the same time bemoaning an extremely elegant building such as 425 Park wasn't so much taller.

The opposite side of Park is either a case of landmarked building, or supersized building that won’t be demolished. 425 Park is really considered to be in the “boutique” office portion of the Avenue.

[SkyHigher]

Originally Posted by NYguy

The opposite side of Park is either a case of landmarked building, or supersized building that won’t be demolished. 425 Park is really considered to be in the “boutique” office portion of the Avenue.

Ah thats a shame.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by SkyHigher

I was just asking whether any potential future plots on the other side of the street, whilst at the same time bemoaning an extremely elegant building such as 425 Park wasn't so much taller.

425 Park is around 900 ft. Not exactly short. And it precedes the rezoning.

There's a major, full-block development site on the east side of Park between 55th and 56th. That's the most likely next major tower on the east side of the avenue. I believe the site is already demolished and cleared. The developer is some Norwegian firm, I think?

[ChiND]

Originally Posted by Crawford

425 Park is around 900 ft. Not exactly short. And it precedes the rezoning.

There's a major, full-block development site on the east side of Park between 55th and 56th. That's the most likely next major tower on the east side of the avenue. I believe the site is already demolished and cleared. The developer is some Norwegian firm, I think?

I don’t think that the site at 55th and Park will be very tall. I don’t think that the site has much square footage. I’d be surprised if it’s 850’. I’d rather see a hotel/condo there.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Crawford

425 Park is around 900 ft. Not exactly short. And it precedes the rezoning.

There's a major, full-block development site on the east side of Park between 55th and 56th. That's the most likely next major tower on the east side of the avenue. I believe the site is already demolished and cleared. The developer is some Norwegian firm, I think?

Originally Posted by ChiND

I don’t think that the site at 55th and Park will be very tall. I don’t think that the site has much square footage. I’d be surprised if it’s 850’. I’d rather see a hotel/condo there.

That's not really a full block site. It just has frontage, same as 425 Park. To really build large, and take advantage of the Midtown East rezoning, you need a larger footprint.



Meanwhile, you can get an idea from this view how a 1,600 ft 350 Park will loom over the area...


https://youtu.be/8FvjGpIKjCo?si=XS9t1XbeZl8rCE5f

[ChiND]

Originally Posted by NYguy

That's not really a full block site. It just has frontage, same as 425 Park. To really build large, and take advantage of the Midtown East rezoning, you need a larger footprint.

I agree. This site seems to be similar in size to BP’s site at the old MTA HQ on
Madison. Then again, a roughly 1,000’ tower was initially proposed there.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by ChiND

I agree. This site seems to be similar in size to BP’s site at the old MTA HQ on
Madison. Then again, a roughly 1,000’ tower was initially proposed there.

This tower will have a footprint (53,000 sf) more than double the 25,000 sf footprint of 343 Madison or 250 Park. Vanderbilt and Roosevelt have footprints of about 43,000 sf. 270 Park, with the entire block, has a footprint of 80,000 sf.