SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Supertall Construction (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=323)
-   -   NEW YORK | 270 Park Ave | 1,388 FT | 58 FLOORS (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=232215)

smilescraper Apr 8, 2019 6:08 PM

Does the City Council require the developer to show a render before deciding about the application?

If so, then we could see a render in a month or so...

Busy Bee Apr 8, 2019 7:39 PM

Rendering.

You paint a painting.

You render a rendering.

NYguy Apr 8, 2019 7:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smilescraper (Post 8533508)
Does the City Council require the developer to show a render before deciding about the application?

If so, then we could see a render in a month or so...

Keep in mind here, what's being approved is the plaza, not the tower which is as of right. The text amedment was already approved basically, but they will still need to go back with final drawings of the plaza at some point. As far as the tower itself, Chase doesn't necessarily have to produce renderings, the tower won't even be under construction until late next year. But with demo of the current building about to kick off, you would think they'd want to show what's replacing it.

NYguy Apr 9, 2019 1:01 AM

A good look at 390 Madison from street level where Chase is moving. There will be a branch on the ground floor as well...


https://www.instagram.com/p/BwAiSbbjYwE/

https://scontent-lhr3-1.cdninstagram...MTQ5Mg%3D%3D.2

chris08876 Apr 9, 2019 2:57 AM

^^^^

I found Waldo on the crosswalk! :yes:

NYguy Apr 12, 2019 2:54 AM

Latest permits...


http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/Jo...ssdocnumber=01

Quote:

04/11/2019

INSTALLATION OF TEMPORARY WORK PLATFORM DESIGNED FOR 600 PSF AS PER DRAWINGS. TEMPORARY WORK PLATFORM SHALL COMPLY WITH CHAPTER #33 OF THE NYC BUILDING CODE.


http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/Jo...ssdocnumber=01

Quote:

04/11/2019

INSTALLATION OF TEMPORARY OVERHEAD PROTECTION AS PER DRAWINGS. TEMPORARY OVERHEAD PROTECTION SHALL COMPLY WITH CHAPTER #33 OF THE NYC BUILDING CODE.

NYguy Apr 15, 2019 2:34 PM

City Council hearing tomorrow...


https://a4.pbase.com/o12/06/102706/1...OBU4OSL.c1.JPG

Hudson11 Apr 15, 2019 2:54 PM

Chase sure is trying to push through a bunch of modifications to the zoning requirements. :shrug:

NYguy Apr 15, 2019 2:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hudson11 (Post 8540511)
Chase sure is trying to push through a bunch of modifications to the zoning requirements. :shrug:

Not really. The only modification they want is to move the outdoor plaza to the west side (which would move the bank branch) or Madison Avenue, which is the main zoning modification. The modifications to the text are a result of that one action. Also, the text is being written so that it only applies to this one specific site. So it has to be worded accordingly.

NYguy Apr 17, 2019 4:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 8540496)



I've looked and listened to Tuesday's hearing. No new graphics, and the information provided was pretty much what we already have. They are still saying the headquarters will house approximately 15,000 people. As of last Friday, 100% of employees at 270 have been relocated. In the interim, 383 Madison Avenue, which Chase says will also need some upgrades, will serve as world headquarters. Council member Powers is still trying to shake down the bank for more general improvements to Park Avenue itself, which frankly is the city's job. Chase hasn't decided exactly where the onsite branch will be, but it won't be on Madison. All in all, things are progressing as expected.

chris08876 Apr 17, 2019 8:24 AM

^^^^^

I'm curious how the occupancy population ranks among other structues, being that 270 Park will house 15,000 or so employees.

For example, the original Twins housed 25k people in each tower. I wonder if there is data on total occupancy by headcount for other large towers (30 Hudson, ESB, BOA, 1 WTC, 55 Water St).

NYguy Apr 18, 2019 3:54 AM

^ It would probably fall in line with the size of the towers.


Meanwhile, the MAS testified at the Council hearing on Tuesday, and of course they couldn't just be happy like everyone else...



https://www.mas.org/news/union-carbi...he-very-least/

Union Carbide’s Replacement Should Improve the Public Realm, at the Very Least


Testimony to the New York City Council
APRIL 16, 2019


Quote:

East Midtown desperately needs open space. In fact, one of the key recommendations from the Greater East Midtown Steering Committee was the requirement for buildings larger than 30,000 square feet to include a POPS. As a result, 16 new POPS could potentially be built in this neighborhood. Therefore, we have great interest in ensuring that this first new POPS in the East Midtown Subdistrict is truly effective and inviting, setting a precedent for those to come in the future.

While we commend JPMC for being responsive to comments from Community Board 5 and the Manhattan Borough President’s Office, we have great concern about the proposed location of the 10,000 square-foot unenclosed POPS. Madison Avenue is a congested narrow street. It includes five major bus routes, with stops on the eastern side of the street. Sidewalks are also relatively narrow and pedestrian traffic is heavy. Moreover, the east side of Madison Avenue is typically shrouded in shadow for large portions of the day throughout the year.
Quote:

Meanwhile, the Park Avenue side of the proposed building is a more inviting location. The Park Avenue side has sufficient sidewalk space (15 feet to the street and 63 feet of building frontage) to accommodate an infinitely more appealing open space. The east and west sides of Park Avenue in the vicinity of the proposed building are popular locations for workers and visitors to eat lunch, rest, and socialize in a sunny location. Traffic would be farther away from POPS visitors than the Madison Avenue side. As such, we find Park Avenue to be a significantly more conducive location for an enjoyable public space.

Given the prominence the new JPMC headquarters will have, the POPS presents an opportunity to create a quality open space that will be an asset to the East Midtown public realm. For the reasons stated herein, we find the location on Park Avenue would be better suited to achieving these goals. Public spaces in East Midtown are few and far between. The area can ill afford a new public space that is in a vastly inferior location.

chris08876 Apr 18, 2019 4:49 AM

I think they all see a big, filthy rich client like JPMC, and they all want something from the cookie jar. Sure... let's take advantage and slow the process down.

One of those rare cases where Brewer was actually cooperative in the process, and took what she requested once implemented, and that was it.

But others chiming along... common now... lets cut the bs. What more do folks want from them. Let's get this tower rolling with the aggressive time-table.

Instead of leeching off developments, if they possibly put their efforts in lobbying the city government to fix some of these issues, they might get somewhere, because we all know the allocation and mismanagement of taxes are big issue. But that's another topic for another day.

The requirements were met, now let's get this thing rolling and stop lagging developments! :) :cheers:

NYguy Apr 19, 2019 2:06 AM

They're trying to squeeze every ounce of blood out of the company they can get. There will be a topping point where companies just say, "you know what? screw that. We're moving to Jersey".

The city can do better for it's own public realm.

Busy Bee Apr 19, 2019 2:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 8545782)
There will be a topping point where companies just say, "you know what? screw that. We're moving to Jersey".

You really think that?

chris08876 Apr 19, 2019 4:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 8545782)
They're trying to squeeze every ounce of blood out of the company they can get. There will be a topping point where companies just say, "you know what? screw that. We're moving to Jersey".

.

In a way, I wouldn't mind that. I'd like to see more action in Jersey City or even Newark ( I kind of view those two cities as unofficial boroughs). Its great that NY is getting all of the love, but how about some love for NJ, given that where both from the Garden State! :)

Part of me would love if Jersey City trolled NYC and the regions new tallest was on the NJ side. That's would be a priceless moment right there.

pianowizard Apr 19, 2019 1:36 PM

If transportation between Jersey City and Manhattan becomes much more convenient, reliable and cheaper, I bet lots of companies would start building headquarters in the former instead of the latter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876 (Post 8545869)
Part of me would love if Jersey City trolled NYC and the regions new tallest was on the NJ side. That's would be a priceless moment right there.

Yes, I would love to see that!

JMKeynes Apr 19, 2019 1:59 PM

I don't think they'd move to JC. They'd go to Charlotte, Atlanta, Dallas, or Nashville where middle-class people can afford to live.

NYguy Apr 19, 2019 7:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busy Bee (Post 8545804)
You really think that?

I don't just think it. I know some people on here may be too young too remember. But Jersey City didn't always have shiny new office or residential towers on the waterfront. And that's just assuming they even want to stay close to Manhattan. There's always Connecticut, or any number of other states businesses could relocate to if the climate became too hostile. There doesn't need to be a mass exodus, but the city and state have both been known to issue breaks to corporations to retain them in the city. You can only go so far, and I think the politicians know that. But they're going to test the limits. Meanwhile, both the city and state collect enough in taxes to provide the city with decent streets and sidewalks. And of course, whether Chase is here or not, transit has to be maintained.

RobEss Apr 20, 2019 7:48 PM

The problem with moving to New Jersey is that then you're in New Jersey.


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:34 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.