Originally Posted by Prezrezc (Post 8099074)

None of those in that article are worth it.

Let the NIMBYS knock their socks of here if they want.

Indeed, even the well-intentioned preervationist might have a problem finding a leg to stand on.

Originally Posted by PhyllisJerry71 (Post 8098026)

NYguy, I just want to say that your posts are always extremely well-written and make some valid points, but given the fact that there are literally dozens, if not hundreds, of other midcentury towers in Midtown East which are of far worse architectural quality and quality of office space, particularly in the immediate vicinity of this tower along the western side of Park Avenue, there is absolutely no way to justify the demolition of this building. Chase owns the land? How hard would it be for them to work out a deal with Colgate-Palmolive to swap out 270 with their white whale of a headquarters at 300 Park? If not, Chase has more than enough money to purchase one of the numerous other sites in the vicinity. Hell, if the city’s so involved in this process, there’s no reason at all that they couldn’t help work out some kind of deal with the owner of a truly outdated building somewhere else in Midtown East—even using eminent domain if it’s that important to keep Chase in the neighborhood. The building doesn’t function for Chase anymore? They’re ONE occupant out of millions of businesses in this city. See, for example, Colgate-Palmolive. I doubt that a toothpaste company is gonna require 20ft ceilings anytime soon—otherwise they would have demo’d their own building already. Every other amenity you’ve argued this building lacks has in fact been added by Chase over the years, or could be created without altering the exterior of the building. Hell, how many smaller businesses would kill for a Park Avenue address? Why couldn’t all or part of the building be renovated as some kind of innovation hub for multiple small tenants? It could be a tremendous boon to job creation in the city without sacrificing the architectural fidelity of this building. Just because it’s not right for single-tenant occupancy by a very specific group of large financial companies doesn’t mean it’s not viable for the businesses that make up the other 95% of the American economy. FWIW, I’d just like to add that 425 Park, as of yesterday, is still only something like 30% leased if I recall correctly. Make of that what you will.

In short, THERE IS NO REASON TO TEAR THIS BUILDING DOWN. The impact of its preservation on the survival of Midtown East as a business district will be negligible. Those of you who have argued in favor of it have proven once again that while SSP may be a skyscraper forum, it is definitely not an architecture forum.

Side note—if others who are in favor of landmarking this building have not done so already, I would suggest reaching out to feminist organizations and making them aware of Natalie de Blois’s role as one of the primary designers of 270. As far as I am aware, this was the first skyscraper to be designed primarily by a woman and this fact should be presented along with any appeal to the LPC. It may cause them to reconsider their earlier decision on 270’s historical significance.

Originally Posted by Crawford (Post 8098422)

On the contrary, there couldn't be a stronger justification for demolishing this property.

The world's biggest bank owns the property and wants to demolish it, and there's absolutely nothing preventing it from doing so (a very good thing, I may add; the existing structure is mediocre at best).

Originally Posted by Crawford (Post 8098777)

What would be the point? The existing site is perfectly located, right next to Grand Central, in the middle of the Chase "campus", and the smaller wedding cake buildings in Midtown East generally have too small footprints and insufficient zoning rights (and quite a few are landmarked).

And I can't think of a single wedding cake building with this rezoning potential. The highest development potential is only for the blocks nearest Grand Central.

This development is exactly what was intended under the rezoning. You can't build anything in this neighborhood without tearing down a huge building from another era.

Originally Posted by Crawford (Post 8099018)

...And I bet you all these buildings will have cherished defenders too. You can't build anything in Midtown East without demolishing something substantial. There are almost no tenements or substandard crap in Midtown East.

Originally Posted by Zerton (Post 8099721)

I can't believe this is the most economical way to build a larger headquarters.

Originally Posted by Prezrezc (Post 8099763)

If the underlying situation were different, could the tower have been converted tp resi?

Originally Posted by 10023 (Post 8100741)

Doesn’t anyone else think this is a shame? There’s an elegance to 270 and 277 across the street from each other.

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 8100135)

Though not as large as the footprint of towers in the Hudson Yards, this one will be larger than even One Vanderbilt.
It will require no wholesale demolition of multiple towers to achieve this, the only comparable thing in east midtown being the planned tower at the Pfizer site.

Originally Posted by 10023 (Post 8100741)

Doesn’t anyone else think this is a shame? There’s an elegance to 270 and 277 across the street from each other.

Too bad they can’t just buy 245 Park from HNA (the Chinese insurer that bought it last year... might be looking to sell?), kick out SocGen et al, and tear down that piece of crap.

Originally Posted by sbarn (Post 8100566)

Here's a quick mockup of what this could look like in the skyline:

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4761/...062f3b2d_b.jpg
270 PARK VISION by scottbarnholt, on Flickr

Original Photo Credit:
Untitled by Stefan Georgi, on Flickr

Originally Posted by JSsocal (Post 8100795)

No this site is as large as the 30 HY parcel, and larger then the 50 HY parcel.

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 8100948)

All the more reason this building has outlived its usefulness on this site.