NEW YORK | 405 Park Avenue | FT | FLOORS
 

Park Avenue office building that lost investors $39 million to be sold for six times that sum
January 15, 2016
By Daniel Geiger

https://standard-discourseorg.netdna-ssl...68e9ed65d566074d9761a1ac6d_1_333x500.jpg

I'm looking forward to seeing what happens here.

This was the site that Macklowe was trying to combine with the residential property next door to build a new full-block tower.

We'll see what happens on this block, especially in the context of the East Midtown rezoning.

NEW YORK | 417 Park Avenue | FT | FLOORS
 

Kushner Companies offers $250M for Park Ave. co-op
By Steve Cuozzo
April 22, 2018

Could be another supertall coming to Park Avenue...

A look at what would be replaced:

https://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/042218-park-ave-embed.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=720

Nice find on the owners already having voted yes, on what sounds like an unofficial vote. I hope those awful mid century wedding cake buildings across the street come down too, Park has a surprising amount of junk when you go this far north.

Hoping for offices topped my hotel/residential.

https://nypost.com/2018/04/22/kushner-companies-offers-250m-for-park-ave-co-op/




https://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/042218-park-ave.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=915




Neighbor getting an upgrade...

It seems like anything Kushner touches doesn't go anywhere. Maybe I'm just being pessimistic with the Kushner touch.

The 83.6% Yes Vote is for whether or not the building should get professional real estate advice, not for the sale of the building.

I'd rather keep this building personally. Hope they don't sell.
If it does sell it will almost assuredly be all residential, and will cater to the extremely wealthy. This wouldn't contribute to -making housing more affordable, or -renewing midtown's office space. It comes down to the building. While this building is typical of those uptown, its also 1 of just 5 prewar sites on park south of 57th-GCT. Its good context, its quality materials, and I like the idea of a lone coop holding it out on park avenue. It's a very NY story.

But very glad 405 is getting redone, that should be a teardown though.

^Agree 100%. If they sell and a tower is built it would be brilliant to rebuild the facade at the base. They should be working with a budget where this would be perfectly doable. If they claim otherwise, they're likely lying.

I def don't want to see this building go!

https://nypost.com/2018/04/23/rezoning-likely-inspired-kushner-companies-park-avenue-bid/

Rezoning likely inspired Kushner Companies’ Park Avenue bid


https://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/20...158187796.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=915


By Steve Cuozzo
April 23, 2018





It's a small site, but the FAR would be 25.


http://a4.pbase.com/o9/06/102706/1/164782631.8jtfxecG.d1.JPG

Never think about how close 425 Park is to the Seagram Building until you see something like this. Anyway, you can see how small this site would be as is.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/05/the-endgame-approaches-for-kushners-looming-tower


BY WILLIAM D. COHAN
MAY 1, 2018

NO NO NO NO NO. This building should be landmarked now and the air rights transferred to 405 Park it another neighboring site. This isn’t like 270 where the aesthetics of the building are up for debate. This is a limestone, Emery Roth-designed Beaux-Arts gem. You’re kidding yousrself if you think we’ll ever produce buildings of this quality again. Demolishing it would be a Penn Station-level travesty.

F*ck Kushner.

I think the most we can hope for here is a facadectomy. I know they are anathema to many here but I can see it working in this case. Another outlandish idea would be to remove the facade piece by piece and reconstruct the building on a new concrete frame somewhere else in Manhattan.

I think you're misunderstanding the rules behind Landmarks. This will never be landmarked, BTW.

Buildings are landmarked because they're significant or rare. This is neither. They aren't landmarked because they're aesthetically appealing.

^Significant or exemplary of a style, and yes even beauty. There is certainly a case for landmarking this building as indicative of the avenue before it became the commercial thoroughfare its now known for (just take a look at the elevation drawingss of park avenue), it was highlighted in the potential landmarks report a year or 2 ago.

No the issue is whether the LPC will step in and get in the way of big new commercial investment, which would have been a resounding no until the head of landmarks stepped down a couple weeks ago. Now its just a probable no.

This building should be landmarked.

^^^^^^^^^^

The stock is quite high if we are talking pre-ww2 buildings. My question is, how is sweet Jesus's name do you expect the city to grow and meet its demand. Its not like land is readily available on an island like Manhattan. There are plenty of land marked structures. You can't restrict most of the city with regards to development. NY is not a museum, it chooses to grow, and to remain the financial capital of the world, it must continue to grow.

And its not like the land marked structures concept doesn't apply now. Existing structures can always be land marked (gain status), but there is a process. This just happens to not be one, and thus, is fair game.

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I find this building sort of dull. Outside of what I assume is its Indiana limestone facade, it's not all that interesting.

It's a decent building at best, but people calling for landmark status just goes to show how little credibility is to be had when people call for landmarking something. As if there aren't a thousand such buildings in Manhattan already.

It's possible that the Kushners may not be looking to tear down the building at all...


But it's more likely that they are. Macklowe may be looking to repeat some of the success of nearby 432 Park, and a nice Stern designed limestone tower would make a lot of money here. The Kushners, meanwhile, may want to pick up an opportunity missed with 666 5th Ave, also a few blocks away.