NEW YORK | 343 Madison Avenue | 844 FT | 49 FLOORS - Page 16

NYguy · #**301** Posted **May 5, 2021, 10:41 PM**

Nothing really new to see at the CB5 meeting as far as renderings, pretty much the same from the CP presentation...

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7. This one is new, you can see the cantilever over the vent building...

8.

9. Some on site work already done....

10. In this photo, behind the blue wall is where the escalators down from street level will meet the concourse...

11.

12.

13.

14.

Busy Bee · #**302** Posted **May 5, 2021, 11:05 PM**

I'd rather see architectural screening above the MTA vent building that looks like part of the tower than the obvious open cantilever as shown. I don't like how that looks next to the Yale Club at all.

colemonkee · #**303** Posted **May 5, 2021, 11:42 PM**

^ Yes, but the drone fly-through opportunities for action movies might outweigh the aesthetic trade-off...

Zerton · #**304** Posted **May 5, 2021, 11:51 PM**

It's boxy and glass but at least it's an interesting boxy glass design.

JMKeynes · #**305** Posted **May 6, 2021, 3:12 AM**

It’s kind of like 110 N Wacker in Chicago, but even lamer because the E-W facade of that tower is faceted at least.

rgarri4 · #**306** Posted **May 6, 2021, 5:01 AM**

It's like they did the massing study and called it a day.

DCReid · #**307** Posted **May 6, 2021, 1:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zerton

It's boxy and glass but at least it's an interesting boxy glass design.

With spectacular 1 Vandy, Chrysler, and planned Grand Hyatt, maybe a plain box on this site may better balance the skyline here.

NYguy · #**308** Posted **May 6, 2021, 1:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by rgarri4

It's like they did the massing study and called it a day.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCReid

With spectacular 1 Vandy, Chrysler, and planned Grand Hyatt, maybe a plain box on this site may better balance the skyline here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zerton

It's boxy and glass but at least it's an interesting boxy glass design.

Well, as an office tower, on this small site, it was obviously always going to be a box. In fact, some of the waivers are to make the building more boxy than standard zoning would allow. Personally, I would have loved a tower that rose straight up without any setbacks on this site. You are never going to get a "Chrysler" built in todays office market, the demands for floorspace are too different, even if the goals are the same - lease office space.

And sure, these preliminary renderings aren't flushed out in great detail, but you can already see some of it. As it is with boxy buildings, the details are always in the facade. Yes, we could have gotten another blue, glass box, but they aren't really building those on the east side (not yet).

This building reminds me of another in the area, the Mobil building on 42nd, in that the treatment of the facade is one of its distinguishing features.

https://www.skyscrapercenter.com/bui...-building/2566

I'm not sure of the materials being used here, but lets just say they've used terra cotta

Also in today's market, the mandatory terrace levels, which I'm sure will be every bit as spectacular as those on 425 Park, and also add a distinguishable feature to the tower.

_

The side core, which isn't new to buildings in the city, gets a treatment here that is likely to be lit as well. If we have to have it, at least let it be a plus to the design.

pico44 · #**309** Posted **May 6, 2021, 2:01 PM**

I hate it when developers refuse to show one side of their building. It seems we are in for another massive hideous mechanical shart. I mean shaft. I blame Norman Foster for this trend. That guy can suck it

JSsocal · #**310** Posted **May 6, 2021, 2:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by pico44

I hate it when developers refuse to show one side of their building. It seems we are in for another massive hideous mechanical shart. I mean shaft. I blame Norman Foster for this trend. That guy can suck it

Honestly the side core is the most interesting part of this building. I don't quite understand the hate for them in all these threads. In a world where every new office is a glass curtain wall, its nice to have another element & material in these designs.

Raysiri · #**311** Posted **May 6, 2021, 2:52 PM**

Will this supertall have subway entrances/exits underneath it?

NYguy · #**312** Posted **May 6, 2021, 4:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by pico44

I hate it when developers refuse to show one side of their building. It seems we are in for another massive hideous mechanical shart. I mean shaft. I blame Norman Foster for this trend. That guy can suck it

As I've said, this isn't new. You can't blame Foster for it. If anything, blame real estate development, which seeks more desirable floor plates. But, that is why these towers are built in the first place.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JSsocal

Honestly the side core is the most interesting part of this building. I don't quite understand the hate for them in all these threads. In a world where every new office is a glass curtain wall, its nice to have another element & material in these designs.

This one in particular will be a nice addition because it's not just a blank wall. Even the 425 Park shaft isn't that bad.

Drcastro · #**313** Posted **May 6, 2021, 5:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raysiri

Will this supertall have subway entrances/exits underneath it?

See earlier posts above for transit connections in great detail.

NYguy · #**314** Posted **May 18, 2021, 3:19 AM**

MAY 16, 2021

NYguy · #**315** Posted **May 26, 2021, 5:30 PM**

Again, a rare chance to hear complaints about not one, but 2 supertall towers.

https://www.cb5.org/cb5m/calendar/2021-june/

Quote:

JOINT LAND USE, HOUSING & ZONING AND TRANSPORTATION & ENVIRONMENT

Wednesday, June 2nd, 2021, at 6:00pm

Agenda (Joint Committee)

*341-347 Madison Ave, an application by BP 343 Madison Associates LLC, in partnership with the MTA, for two Vanderbilt Corridor Special Permits to facilitate the redevelopment of the site at 341-347 Madison Ave.

*175 Park Ave, an application by Commodore Owners LLC for East Midtown Special Permits to facilitate a mixed-use office, retail and hotel development.

NYguy · #**316** Posted **Jun 2, 2021, 10:09 PM**

343 Madison up first...

CB5

• Video Link

NYguy · #**317** Posted **Jun 2, 2021, 10:32 PM**

NYguy · #**318** Posted **Jun 16, 2021, 8:05 PM**

CB5 gives a thumbs down. Next up, Borough President’s office.

https://www.cb5.org/cb5m/resolutions.../resolution_4/

Cut to the good part…

Quote:

WHEREAS, Community Board Five, however, does not believe these improvements as proposed are sufficient to justify the additional FAR requested given the substantial density the building will bring to the area and the resulting increased demands on public transit in a corridor that already is experiencing a significant increase in density from the East Midtown and Vanderbilt Corridor rezonings; and

WHEREAS, the building massing is not compliant with the Vanderbilt Corridor daylight evaluation requirements, causing the sidewalks to be darker than a compliant massing would, and Community Board Five believes the building massing should comply with the requirements of the existing zoning, to minimize the encroachment on the sky exposure plane; and

WHEREAS, Retail frontage on Madison Avenue is a priority to maintain a vibrant and welcoming street experience for pedestrians, and the proposed lobby width is unnecessary and should be reduced to comply with the existing zoning; and

WHEREAS, CB5 recognizes that a street wall height in excess of the compliant 150 feet may be appropriate, the proposed 321 foot street wall height is excessive and should be lowered; and

WHEREAS, CB5 does not object to the special permits requested related to entrance recess, curb cut, loading berth, and street wall design to accommodate the entrance to East Side Access; therefore be it

RESOLVED, Community Board Five recommends denial of the special permits requested in this application unless the above concerns are addressed, specifically enhanced below grade public transit improvements, a lower street wall height, compliant daylight evaluation score, and a reduction in lobby width to accommodate the required retail frontage on Madison Avenue.

chris08876 · #**319** Posted **Jun 16, 2021, 8:23 PM**

CB-5 must of been born with a thumbs down deformity where their thumbs never rise.

But I eagerly await this to rise once the clown parade and review is entertained.

"" WHEREAS, the building massing is not compliant with the Vanderbilt Corridor daylight evaluation requirements, causing the sidewalks to be darker than a compliant massing would, and Community Board Five believes the building massing should comply with the requirements of the existing zoning, to minimize the encroachment on the sky exposure plane; and ""

Oh brother...

NYguy · #**320** Posted **Jun 16, 2021, 8:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876

CB-5 must of been born with a thumbs down deformity where their thumbs never rise.

But I eagerly await this to rise once the clown parade and review is entertained.

"" WHEREAS, the building massing is not compliant with the Vanderbilt Corridor daylight evaluation requirements, causing the sidewalks to be darker than a compliant massing would, and Community Board Five believes the building massing should comply with the requirements of the existing zoning, to minimize the encroachment on the sky exposure plane; and ""

Oh brother...

They don’t even recognize that the higher streetwall height reduces the overall building height a bit.