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

[Busy Bee]

Never liked the stacked trapezoid design or the shifted core. Good riddance if it's no longer current.

[MAC123]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Never liked the stacked trapezoid design or the shifted core. Good riddance if it's no longer current.

I disagree, I loved that design. But I doubt it's current anyway, or anything that's released for a while will be.

[streetscaper]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Never liked the stacked trapezoid design or the shifted core. Good riddance if it's no longer current.

Agreed! Same!

[DCReid]

Originally Posted by streetscaper

Agreed! Same!

I would be leery if it was built as is. I suspect that the spires would be value-engineered out if it was constructed, as well as the braces, much as it was for 3 WTC.

[BK1985]

Originally Posted by DCReid

I would be leery if it was built as is. I suspect that the spires would be value-engineered out if it was constructed, as well as the braces, much as it was for 3 WTC.

I think that's an apples to oranges comparison. 3 WTC is part of a complex with many different moving parts and funding vehicles whereas 350 would be a stand alone development that isnt veiled with the competing interests of many different groups. By your logic, you would leery of every single proposed building that isnt a basic box.

[DCReid]

Originally Posted by BK1985

I think that's an apples to oranges comparison. 3 WTC is part of a complex with many different moving parts and funding vehicles whereas 350 would be a stand alone development that isnt veiled with the competing interests of many different groups. By your logic, you would leery of every single proposed building that isnt a basic box.

Not really. It seems that developers may change their proposals in many instances. They could change the height, such as One Vanderbilt and 1 and 2 Manhattan Sq towers near the Farley Station. Or they sometimes change the design - Gehry was supposed to be wavy on all sides and that was changed. Spires and even braces can be perceived as 'vanity' and developers can sometimes eliminate them to hold down the cost of building. I think they were eliminated from 3 WTC to hold down the cost.

[BK1985]

Originally Posted by DCReid

Not really. It seems that developers may change their proposals in many instances. They could change the height, such as One Vanderbilt and 1 and 2 Manhattan Sq towers near the Farley Station. Or they sometimes change the design - Gehry was supposed to be wavy on all sides and that was changed. Spires and even braces can be perceived as 'vanity' and developers can sometimes eliminate them to hold down the cost of building. I think they were eliminated from 3 WTC to hold down the cost.

What does any of those examples have to do with this design? You’re prejudging something based on the actions of other developers in the past so what I said still stands. This overtly pessimistic outlook is tiresome especially when this is most likely several years off from actually happening so naturally there more than likely will be design changes.

[DCReid]

Originally Posted by BK1985

What does any of those examples have to do with this design? You’re prejudging something based on the actions of other developers in the past so what I said still stands. This overtly pessimistic outlook is tiresome especially when this is most likely several years off from actually happening so naturally there more than likely will be design changes.

I don't like it and hope it is not built as is. My opinion and end of my comment.

[BK1985]

Originally Posted by DCReid

I don't like it and hope it is not built as is. My opinion and end of my comment.

You could have led with that instead of insinuating that your opposition is due to any potential value engineering.

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by DCReid

I don't like it and hope it is not built as is. My opinion and end of my comment.

I got your back homey.

[gttx]

Originally Posted by BK1985

What does any of those examples have to do with this design? You’re prejudging something based on the actions of other developers in the past so what I said still stands. This overtly pessimistic outlook is tiresome especially when this is most likely several years off from actually happening so naturally there more than likely will be design changes.

Vornado is legendary for doing zillions of design iterations for the same project, some of which have still never gotten off the ground (looking at you Penn Station district). The actions of this developer in particular warrant images released for the site to be taken only as ideas or pitches to clients, not as anything real. I would take it with a grain of salt until shovels are in the ground.

[BK1985]

Originally Posted by gttx

Vornado is legendary for doing zillions of design iterations for the same project, some of which have still never gotten off the ground (looking at you Penn Station district). The actions of this developer in particular warrant images released for the site to be taken only as ideas or pitches to clients, not as anything real. I would take it with a grain of salt until shovels are in the ground.

A design change isn’t necessarily due to value engineering which is where I’m coming from. For example, 220 CPS went through a design change but it wasn’t due to VE, they just changed the concept.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by gttx

Vornado is legendary for doing zillions of design iterations for the same project, some of which have still never gotten off the ground (looking at you Penn Station district). The actions of this developer in particular warrant images released for the site to be taken only as ideas or pitches to clients, not as anything real. I would take it with a grain of salt until shovels are in the ground.

Well, even if you know nothing of developers (in particular), what we at least here on this skyscraper forum know, or should know, is that designs are always subject to change. Sometimes just at the whim of the developer, and sometimes the client that actually helps to get the tower built. But for the most part, when sticking with a particular architect or firm, the changes are not as drastic as say going from Foster's 2 WTC to BIG's 2 WTC.

I say I suspect this will have changed mostly because it appears to be so incomplete in some of the renderings.

I would say Vornado has doubled down with this stacking (see 15 Penn), but again, a tenant could change everything.



_



If they stick with Foster (who is busy with Vornado's Penn plans), I can see a different, or more refined version of this tower. In truth, it's really a larger version of 425 Park Avenue.






I think the strongest elements of the design are at the base of the tower. I can also see a little of this in 270 Park.

[JMKeynes]

Like 350 Park, I think that 15 Penn looks great.

[BuildThemTaller]

It's a giant filing cabinet. No amount of trees is going to make this look good. There is no elegance. They never show the northern exposure, which is a giant blank wall. I really hope this gets a significant redesign before they start going vertical. I'm probably hoping against hope here.

[JMKeynes]

Originally Posted by BuildThemTaller

It's a giant filing cabinet. No amount of trees is going to make this look good. There is no elegance. They never show the northern exposure, which is a giant blank wall. I really hope this gets a significant redesign before they start going vertical. I'm probably hoping against hope here.

Vornado plans to develop the block just to the north of this with a tower that’s almost as tall, so any blank wall will be obscured. Further, we have no idea what Foster has planned for the north facade.

[BK1985]

Originally Posted by BuildThemTaller

It's a giant filing cabinet. No amount of trees is going to make this look good. There is no elegance. They never show the northern exposure, which is a giant blank wall. I really hope this gets a significant redesign before they start going vertical. I'm probably hoping against hope here.

I know its incredibly off topic to discuss 15 Penn here but the one rendering that gave us a peek around the corner of the northern façade did appear to have some glazing with a visible elevator bank, so my hope is that the majority of the northern façade is done like that.

[JMKeynes]

Originally Posted by BK1985

I know its incredibly off topic to discuss 15 Penn here but the one rendering that gave us a peek around the corner of the northern façade did appear to have some glazing with a visible elevator bank, so my hope is that the majority of the northern façade is done like that.

I recall that.

[Drcastro]

It would be nice if they opened up that service core a little; more like the Leadenhall in London. But I like the current design.

[NYguy]

https://therealdeal.com/2022/03/25/b...expansion/amp/

Blackstone again weighing Manhattan HQ move, expansion





TRD STAFF
MAR 25, 2022

Blackstone is reportedly getting restless at its 345 Park Avenue office once again, eyeing options for an expansion or move.

The private equity firm is seeking 1.5 million square feet of office space, people familiar with the matter told Bloomberg. The company is weighing options that include a move to another building in the city, or redeveloping a building to create the space.

Blackstone isn’t shutting the door on 345 Park. Bloomberg reported the firm may expand its presence at the Rudin Management building, where it has operated for more than three decades. The building is slightly bigger than 1.8 million square feet, so expanding Blackstone’s presence to fit its ambitions would be difficult with other tenants in place.

Last year, Blackstone signed a deal to expand at the office by 80,000 square feet, bringing its total at 345 Park to 720,000 square feet. The firm also extended its lease for an additional year, through 2028.

But Blackstone has threatened to move before. The firm was reported in 2020 to be considering options for a new headquarters as large as 1 million square feet. Blackstone reportedly asked a handful of landlords to submit proposals for potential headquarters in Midtown and the Far West Side.

Among the sites under consideration at the time was a supertall office tower on Park Avenue proposed by Rudin and Vornado Realty Trust. The developers floated the idea of developing separately owned properties into a 1,450-foot-tall, 1.68 million-square-foot tower at 350 Park Avenue.

Morgan Stanley’s recent move for Manhattan office space offers context for the size of Blackstone’s reported hunt. The investment bank recently agreed to one of the biggest leases of the pandemic, poised to move into Park Avenue Plaza next year. That lease encompassed roughly 400,000 square feet, barely a quarter of what Blackstone is reportedly looking for.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ttan-expansion

Blackstone Hunts for Office Space in Major Manhattan Expansion


ByNatalie Wong
March 24, 2022

The New York-based private equity firm is hunting for roughly 1.5 million square feet (140,000 square meters) of space as it considers relocating from its longtime headquarters on Park Avenue, according to people familiar with the matter.

As it explores its options, Blackstone is looking at sites across Manhattan and could opt to redevelop a building given how much space it needs. The firm may also end up expanding at 345 Park, one of the people said. The building, owned by Rudin Management Co., has housed the firm more than 30 years.

… a handful of major finance and tech firms have been seeking space in New York. Ken Griffin’s Citadel has been looking at additional offices in Manhattan to accommodate his firm’s growing roster of employees in the region, while Morgan Stanley signed one of the city’s largest leases since the pandemic started.

Blackstone is looking for a significant amount of space. One Vanderbilt, the new skyscraper across from Grand Central Terminal, spans 1.7 million square feet, while Goldman Sachs Group Inc.’s headquarters building downtown is more than 2 million square feet.

Blackstone has roughly 1.1 million square feet of offices in Manhattan. The Real Deal reported in July 2020 that the company was looking for additional space. About a year ago, the firm signed a short-term lease extension to expand at 345 Park. The firm also has offices at 601 Lexington Ave.