NEW YORK | 343 Madison Avenue | 844 FT | 49 FLOORS
 

Therealdeal.com reported on 28 Feb. 2012 that the MTA is submitting RFPs to developers for its Madison Avenue headquarters. It's sad because it's a nice, per-war tower. That being said, a lot of air rights exist here, and something over 300m could rise here.

By it's you mean the MTA! & this is exciting news.

I wish more companies would do what Hearst did with its HQ; the facade is really all that matters on these buildings as most of the interiors are dingy etc.

People worried about the visual impact of 432 Park (cross fingers it gets to 1,700 as you mentioned was possible) are delusional... all of Midtown is going to be sprouting 1,000' towers by the end of the decade. NYC is going to have the first skyline in the world that is truly Coruscant-esque.

There are a number of major development sites along Madison near Grand Central that could yield 1000 ft.+ towers.

I think this part of town will look very different 10 years from now.

That's true. There are A LOT of unused air rights from GCT.

Potentially dramatically, especially as the city considers upzoning the entire neighborhood (already one of the densest--if not the densest office cluster--in the world).

The main takeaway from all this is that opposition to height in NYC is silly, and also that the ESB's days as a focal point for Midtown are quite numbered. With the developments to the West (Hudson Yards T2, Brookfield's T2, 15 Penn--all as tall/taller than the ESB), the developments to the North (432 Park and likely 225 W57th) and the emerging proposals along the East Side, it is going to be a giant among equals rather than a solitary behemoth.

If only we could get the Met Life North Tower finally completed. :(

The news today in the WSJ suggests the office market is going to flooded with space soon and the financial services industry is getting smaller. Don't expect many new office towers to go up any time soon.:(

These towers aren't being built on spec., and the financial services industry always expands and contracts. I guarantee that banks alone (excluding Credit Suisse) will be seeking millions of square feet in a few years. As the financial and commercial capital of the world, NY has a unique demand for space. In this regard, it's been well-documented that companies currently seek between 5 and 6m sf of space. No other city in the US or Europe can make a similar claim.

Since you're not from NY, it's understandable that you don't understand it's unparalleled position.

Being from NY has nothing to do with it. Jesus, just drop it man.:rolleyes: You just need to stop talking like that.

I disagree. By the way, why won't you concede where you're from?

No. 51 Astor is being looked at by tech companies. 1 WTC up to this point is largely occupied by a publishing and a law firm. Hudson Yards South's anchor tenant makes purses, among other stuff I've been told. 250 W 55th is almost entirely leased, and it's all law firms. Plus you have L'Oreal looking at enough space to anchor, and get 3 WTC built, 500K for a make up company! (I know they won't move there but just an indication of how much space that is), Viacom and News Corp both none financial firms looking for huge amounts of space, 1M SF each.

Financial service companies have traditionally driven new office construction in the past, but as has been posted in the Hudson Yards thread, all sorts of companies, from all different types of industries are looking for new space because almost 90% of commercial square feet in Manhattan predates 1970, source. That is an incredible statistic.

I met with a woman who works at Studley this morning, and she has worked on the Time Warner account, a media company that is reevaluating it's more than 4 MILLION SF NY portfolio, that's almost one entire of the original twin towers, and they're also managing Jones Day which is another law firm looking for 400K worth of square feet, and she hinted at some other names and locations they're looking at specifically but nothing that wouldn't surprise someone on this site. Plus Milbank is getting booted from the JP building downtown and needs 250K sf.

Plus, your assertion that financial firms won't move isn't well founded either. Credit Suisse is actively looking at new space with CBRE, and Citi is looking around too. There is a lot of natural pent up demand for new space, the vacancy rate is falling, and rents are rising. These companies are smart, they know that at places like Hudson Yards, MW, and the WTC they can get huge blocks of office space (which it's important to understand is very rare in Manhattan) at discounted prices because of tax credits, among other things so they actually save money in the future by signing leases now and get into one of those new buildings instead of waiting until their lease expires in 2015 or 2018 when the economy will probably be better, and rents will be higher.

That was a bit of a rant, I had a long day so I apologize, and don't take it personally but what you said is just false.

He posted the same exact thing in like 5 different threads... if I had to guess, I would say he's from Chicago as that is the #1 region that likes to 'intrude' on NYC threads (but I guess that makes sense when nothing is going on in their city!).

Hey man, i am repeating what the WSJ wrote. So, take your rants elsewhere. This wasn't something I came up with.:rolleyes: Or, go and take it out on the editorial board of the WSJ!!!

I'm pro NY, and not from Chicago. I posted that in many threads because it is very worrying news for everyone who wants NY to build more tall buildings:rolleyes: I don't have insider information to contradict what the press are saying, so if its wrong, you can't blame me for reading a well known publication like the WSJ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Agreed. It would be the new ESB for 21st century Midtown. Can't wait for supertalls to be the new standard in New York. We might have one of the world's tallest skylines one day, as well as the largest.

I expect this trend to continue in order to keep Midtown up to speed in the modern office market. As great as the West-Side expansion is, it does not compensate for modern office space in the heart of Midtown. As previously pointed out there are many unused air-rights in the Grand Central area that can be leveraged in order to fill the demand.

No, actually it was a very informative post. Why the WSJ citing a 13 story building in the village as an example of some sort of office property bubble is beyond me. :shrug:

I hope it's an amazing building, because the building that is there now is very good.
Whether it will be replaced, it must be for something much better.

Thanks, sbarn.

In the fall of last year Stephen Ross CEO of Related, said he was speaking with 8 companies who all were looking at at least 1M sf of space, plus the companies on the list below (thanks to RW for posting it in HY thread), and add to that list the Milbanks and other firms who haven't been as public with their hunt for new space, and barring an economic catastrophe, there is plenty of demand to go around.

Regurgitating what someone else wrote without putting any thought into the validity of the original point isn't something I'd recommend. But regardless of how well anyone on this board thinks we may understand, in this case New York's commercial real estate market, I guarantee you the cities developers, Related, Brookfield, Silverstein, Vornado, etc, all know it much better than anyone here. So the fact that these firms are still bullish on commercial real estate in the city, like Brookfield building the platform for MW despite not having a single tenant, Related not far behind building a platform for the bigger north tower, and the fact that 51 Astor is being built with no tenants, I think is a much more accurate indicator than a pretty narrowly focused article written in WSJ which conveniently ignores a lot of relevant information. But I digress.

http://therealdeal.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Comm_market_Report_top_10_tenants.jpg
Source.

I didn't read the article, but if what you're posting is true, the article is stupid.

There are roughly 500 million square feet of Manhattan office space, and Manhattan has, by far, the lowest vacancy rate in the U.S.

The only way that one could "flood" Manhattan with office space is to build minimum 100 million square feet of space or something.

And I guarantee that nothing close to 100 million square feet is u/c. Probably little more than 10-15 million square feet.

Financial services, BTW, are doing just fine. Big banks have issues, but they're still highly profitable, and that's just one portion of the securities industry. Smaller outfits are doing very well by filling in the gap left by the retrenching bigger firms.

aquablue has said that he's not from chicago and his IP address routes to washington D.C.

if you continue to stir up more chicago vs. NYC nonsense, you WILL be suspended. this bullshit is getting tiresome; grow up.

now back to the topic on hand.

del

^ my post was directed at babybackribs, not you.

that's why i quoted him in my post.

LOL. Sorry, what an idiot I am!

This kinda makes me sad... THIS is a beautiful pre-war building.

It is sad. Nevertheless, its fate is sealed.

As far as the height goes, this tower should be at least 300m tall. This is a very narrow site. Consider that Madison in the low 40s is bisected by Vanderbilt, and therefore, the sites are very narrow. Moreover, two old office buildings sit behind the MTA's HQ on the Vanderbilt side. This very small parcel likely will have a small boutique office component (e.g., 250-300k sf) that will be geared to hedge funds, PE/VC firms, etc. There also likely will be a five-star hotel and very expensive condos.

Can someone post the Google Maps aerial view of the site?

It's a prime, albeit small site less than a block from Grand Central.

http://img848.imageshack.us/img848/1201/341madisonavenuenewyork.png

I wouldn't be surprised if the Yale Club gets wrapped up in this somehow too.

Well looks like the view from the Top of the Rock looking SE (and East in general) will change in a few miniscule years.

The Yale Club can't get demolished, cause it's landmarked. BUT they could use air rights if not already used.

Yeah, I would imagine the Yale Club will sell their air rights.

There are millions of sf of air rights available from GCT. However, this foot print is so small that even a 1m sf tower would exceed 300m. With small site, up is the only way to go!

Keep in mind that the City is studying an "upzoning" of the area...
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=197082

Now only of some of those 'millions' of sq ft from GCT went to the site we know today as 383 Madison Ave, back in 1989. With a site this small 1msf can be at least 700-800 ft, since it is office, and the usual 1msf office buildings are 500 ft tall. This building would benefit with some residential components.

That seems reasonable enough.

1m sf would be taller than that. This is a very small site.

^ Yeah I know Rob, that's why at a max I think It'll be atleast 1,100 ft. A minimum of 700-800 ft, for such a small footprint.

I agree.

This was the first thing I thought when I read this topic. Apparently the rezoning is in progress. :haha:

http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2012/04/16...rezoning_near_grand_central_terminal.php

Fun With Urban Planning
Bloomberg Pushing for Rezoning Near Grand Central Terminal
Monday, April 16, 2012, by Sara Polsky
Share on email0As Mayor Bloomberg's third term draws to a close, the administration is pushing for a rezoning of the Grand Central neighborhood while it still has the chance. The rezoning would encompass the area between Fifth and Third avenues and East 39th and East 59th streets. It "would be a linchpin of [Bloomberg's] legacy," one unnamed business official tells the Daily News, and it would also have significant implications for Grand Central-area development. Such as?

If the rezoning went through as Bloomberg imagines, it would allow area developers to build up to the height of the Chrysler Building, which one city zoning expert says would make buildings around Grand Central an average of 20 percent to 30 percent larger. A city planning spokesperson says only that the administration is considering the plan now and that it will take a few months to finalize. In the meantime, fantasy renderings of a taller Midtown welcomed to the Curbed inbox.

http://therealdeal.com/blog/2013/06/25/mta-seeks-developer-to-demolish-rebuild-madison-avenue-hq/

MTA seeks developer to demolish, rebuild Madison Avenue HQ
Site could support development of up to 600,000 square feet


http://s12.therealdeal.com/trd/up/2013/06/prendergast-mta.jpg


June 25, 2013
By Katherine Clarke

I hate the MTA.

Seriously, why replace this great looking Pre-war building with more than likely another glass box, which we have way too much of already and which is pretty much what is being built everywhere nowadays?

Just sell the damn air rights. Stupid MTA. Stupid city.

Why replace a "great" looking building? My guess is because buildings aren't just there to be seen. It's the year 2013, not 1913. But beyond the fact that I don't buy into the "glass boxes everywhere" argument (it's actually these older buildings that are everywhere in Manhattan), we don't even know what would be built in it's place. I do know that according to city plans, for someone to use all of the available air rights here, they would have to use high quality architecture - the design would have to be approved.

Well of course! Look who thinks tearing down an old building for a new one is always a good idea.

You make the same argument all the time: Manhattan has a lot of old buildings and a buildings use.

Old buildings like these are not an inexhaustible supply. Over time they will become rarer and rarer while soulless glass buildings like ones in every downtown everywhere slowly but surely take over (and you'll be surprise how quickly these things can happen).

And this current building can always be retrofitted for whatever use they deem most profittable at the moment.

We may not know what the exact look of the new building is but we can pretty much guess that it won't be monumentally great.

Because, if it's the correct argument, why change it? (And I've never said it was always a good idea.)

But forget about "retrofitting". We're in prime midtown Manhattan. It should offer the best, not best adequate. There's a difference.



http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20130627...uarters-make-way-for-luxury-developments

MTA's Madison Avenue Headquarters to Make Way for Luxury Developments


http://assets.dnainfo.com/generated/phot...adquarters-1372345193.jpg/extralarge.jpg


By Alan Neuhauser
June 27, 2013

So, is the MTA mandating that something is developed? Is there a risk of this becoming a stalled, vacant lot. Does the MTA get proceeds from the sale of land or the revenue from the project?

The MTA gets $150 million or so from a 99 year lease of the land. I believe that that's regardless of whether or not the developer actually builds something- strong incentive for the developer not to leave it an empty hole.

This is totally wrong. The vast majority of old buildings in Manhattan are in landmarked districts.

Even if every single old building that could be demolished were actually demolished, it wouldn't have a major effect on the overall stock of old buildings.

I'm willing to take my chances on something new over the current building, which is an ugly dump.

NEW YORK | 341 Madison Ave
 

MTA's Madison Avenue Headquarters to Make Way for Luxury Developments
By Alan Neuhauser
June 27, 2013

Another supertall for Midtown? Bring it on!
:yes:

Fuck the MTA!

http://therealdeal.com/blog/2013/10/12/mta-headquarters-again-up-for-grabs/




http://nypost.com/2013/10/11/mta-seeks-new-bids-for-midtown-headquarters-site/



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/152875860/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/152875861/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/152875862/original.jpg

I don't know about you guys, but I just can feel that we are heading towards very exciting times. The city is already experiencing an incredible boom, but my gut tells me we'll be seing even more tall towers going up in the next years.

Heading that way? It's already pretty exciting for me. The developments on the east side may be a little further off, but we could eventually be seeing some very nice designs, regardless of height. We have a lot to look forward to.