HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Proposals


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #821  
Old Posted Apr 30, 2024, 8:03 PM
TREPYE TREPYE is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYguy View Post
Either way, it would be no worse than 432 Park or Central Park Tower.
This is true.

Those 2 went really out of their way to demoralize the spirit of good architecture.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #822  
Old Posted Apr 30, 2024, 8:16 PM
ChiND ChiND is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2023
Posts: 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by TREPYE View Post
This is true.

Those 2 went really out of their way to demoralize the spirit of good architecture.
I think that Central Park Tower is beautiful.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #823  
Old Posted Apr 30, 2024, 8:19 PM
ChiND ChiND is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2023
Posts: 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYguy View Post
This tower will have a footprint (53,000 sf) more than double the 25,000 sf footprint of 343 Madison or 250 Park. Vanderbilt and Roosevelt have footprints of about 43,000 sf. 270 Park, with the entire block, has a footprint of 80,000 sf.



Thanks. How many buildable square feet does the 405-417 Park site have? Since the floor plates would be pretty small, I assume that something somewhat tall and slender could rise there.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #824  
Old Posted May 1, 2024, 1:23 AM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 52,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by TREPYE View Post
This is true.

Those 2 went really out of their way to demoralize the spirit of good architecture.
CPT is such a disappointment for a 1,500 footer.



Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiND View Post
Thanks. How many buildable square feet does the 405-417 Park site have? Since the floor plates would be pretty small, I assume that something somewhat tall and slender could rise there.

That site has a FAR of 25 due to Midtown East rezoning.



__________________
NEW YORK is Back!

“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #825  
Old Posted May 1, 2024, 1:33 AM
ChiND ChiND is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2023
Posts: 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYguy View Post
CPT is such a disappointment for a 1,500 footer.






That site has a FAR of 25 due to Midtown East rezoning.




Thanks. So they can build a roughly 1.5 m sf tower on the site of 405-417 Park? If so, that would be pretty tall considering how shallow the footprint is. In fact, its footprint seems shallower than 425 Park’s.

Presumably, they also can buy air rights too.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #826  
Old Posted May 1, 2024, 1:42 AM
DCReid DCReid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,095
Quote:
Originally Posted by TREPYE View Post
This is true.

Those 2 went really out of their way to demoralize the spirit of good architecture.
Which is why I am enjoying the current crop of NY supertalls proposed and being built (I hope so at least). They diminish the impact of some of the more bland ones and may even make them look a little better from certain angles as their plainest contrast with some of the more interesting ones. Lin's second rendering in post #805 certainly makes 432 Park look better...but it's really too bad CPT did not get the spire; it would have looked a tad better.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #827  
Old Posted May 1, 2024, 4:08 AM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 52,019
A little more here on Park Avenue’s place in the rebirth of the city’s office market…


Some good stuff in this interview…


https://commercialobserver.com/2024/...filling-space/

Colliers’ Michael Cohen On Filling All That Empty New York Office Space
It all starts with rezoning vast swaths of the city and letting private capital come in



BY DAVID M. LEVITT
APRIL 16, 2024


Quote:
Cohen, president of the global brokerage’s New York tri-state region, is almost never at a loss for words about that region and where it’s going.

Cohen, with some assistance from Colliers’ statistical guru Franklin Wallach, recently sat down with Commercial Observer to answer questions that have been on the minds of not only the real estate industry’s professionals but policymakers and other business leaders.
Quote:
Commercial Observer: How do you see Manhattan leasing its way back to 10 percent availability (it was 18 percent at the end of the first quarter, per Colliers data), and how long will that take?

Michael Cohen: So, I imagine you knew this when you asked the question: I don’t really see us leasing our way back to 10 percent, or anything near 10 percent. Improved leasing can reasonably be part of the equation, but it’s not the single factor.

So if 10 percent is not the new normal, what is the new normal?

Job growth alone, which has historically been the way we lease ourselves out of the troughs of the market cycle, is not going to be sufficient. We’re going to have to look for other ways to reduce the oversupply to a more manageable number, closer to that 10 percent equilibrium

In some places in this market, we’re already there, remarkably. The difference between Park and Sixth and Third and some of the other submarkets as of year end 2023 — Sixth Avenue and Park Avenue in the primary areas have an availability rate of between 11.5 and 12 percent, which is much closer to market equilibrium, whereas Third Avenue, Seventh Avenue and Broadway had availabilities in the 19- and 20-plus percentages.
Quote:
So what you are saying is that we are seeing the areas along Park and Sixth race ahead while the rest of the city lags. Are you saying we’re going to have “have avenues” and “have-not avenues”? A bifurcation of the market? It would be nice if you had one part of town where everything is rosy and another where you could work on all sorts of conversion options.

I just want to clarify a couple of things regarding Park and Sixth. It’s not just their locations, which have always been appealing, as you have pointed out. There’s always been a tremendous amount of capital that has gone into them to make them more appealing to a 21st century audience. Also, the southern end around Bryant Park has also been a crossover market that is almost unique to Midtown, and that has appealed to the technology industry, anchored by the Salesforce Tower overlooking Bryant Park, which kind of gave the equivalent of the Salesforce seal of approval to that part of town.

And we’ve seen Indeed, Global Relay and a number of other technology clients focus on the Bryant Park neighborhood as distinguished from Sixth Avenue in general, and that has given Sixth Avenue a competitive advantage over other parts of Midtown.

The list of technology companies on Sixth also includes Take-Two Interactive at 1133 Avenue of the Americas, and then the other one is Array, and the one at 5 Bryant Park is Seamless-Grubhub. You don’t find technology companies in the Plaza District or on Park Avenue — that’s mostly financial services. But Sixth attracts finance and technology.

So the question still remains, how do we get from almost 100 million empty square feet or an availability rate of 18 percent, back to something closer to 10 percent, as we have on Park and Sixth? And the answer is a little of this and a little of that. It’s not monolithic.
Quote:
To come back to the question, legislation that is going to automate this process is going to be a big boost. That includes rezoning Midtown South. The city speaks to the elimination of these anachronistic manufacturing zones in that area that are really brimming these days with hospitality and retail and residential and office, and are not hospitable to manufacturing.

I’m going to switch hats here for a moment and be a bit of a booster because, as you may know, I chair the business improvement district known as Flatiron-NoMad, and we consider our neighborhood the poster child for the city of the future. The epicenter of Flatiron-NoMad is Madison Square Park. If you look in all directions around the park, you find the live-work-play environment that is so desirable.

And, to the north and the west of us, there are parts of town that cannot be put to their highest and best use under the current zoning. And the city is well underway soliciting public comment and planning to complete the public review and approval process by 2026. That’s going to open up millions of square feet for redevelopment into residential, both conversions and new construction. And I think there is tremendous demand for that. It’s long overdue.
Quote:
I have a theory that I haven’t heard anybody else share, which I will share with you. The city has, for a long time, had very little new development. In the real estate business, a modern building was one that was built in the 1980s or 1990s. There was very little in the wake of the 2001 meltdown, very little construction in the 21st century. And part of the problem was that in the most desirable neighborhoods along Park and Madison and so forth, if you tore down a building, you couldn’t even rebuild what you tore down. So intrepid developers like L&L Holding came up with workarounds.

So we had this inability to create new product due to this anachronistic zoning. L&L used these workarounds, but they were not as satisfying as tearing down an old building and replacing it with a new one. So Hudson Yards was born, I believe, off the overflow of tenants who could not find the large modern new buildings that they needed in Midtown.

Simultaneous with Hudson Yards, the city did an experiment with rezoning to allow buildings as large as One Vanderbilt, which proved hugely popular.

And, in the wake of One Vanderbilt, the city changed the zoning, so the air rights to St. Patrick’s and Grand Central are fungible over a large swath of Midtown East.

The poster child for this, I always say, is 250 Park, which is in a fabulous location and is being offered for sale right now. It’s a building that has a demolition clause in it. I guarantee you, every buyer looking at that building is looking at it as a development site. It will eventually be torn down and replaced by a supertall.
__________________
NEW YORK is Back!

“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #828  
Old Posted May 1, 2024, 7:23 AM
streetscaper streetscaper is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: New York
Posts: 2,723
Wrong thread
__________________
hmmm....
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #829  
Old Posted May 1, 2024, 9:17 AM
SkyHigher SkyHigher is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2019
Posts: 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYguy View Post
This tower will have a footprint (53,000 sf) more than double the 25,000 sf footprint of 343 Madison or 250 Park. Vanderbilt and Roosevelt have footprints of about 43,000 sf. 270 Park, with the entire block, has a footprint of 80,000 sf.




out of interest what is the footprint sf of 1-4 WTC?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #830  
Old Posted May 1, 2024, 12:00 PM
TKD's Avatar
TKD TKD is offline
March Forward
 
Join Date: Mar 2022
Posts: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiND View Post
Thanks. So they can build a roughly 1.5 m sf tower on the site of 405-417 Park? If so, that would be pretty tall considering how shallow the footprint is. In fact, its footprint seems shallower than 425 Park’s.

Presumably, they also can buy air rights too.
Not sure where you grabbed that the 2 individual sites combined are 60,000 sqft (x25 is 1.5m) they are only 20,000 sqft combined, a tower built would only have a zoning floor area of 500,000sqft. The building would be smaller than 425 Park Ave, though it was built before the rezoning took affect it was still built with a FAR of 24. The lot area is smaller by 10,000 sqft.

270 Park ave may have a lot area of 80,000sqft but its actual footprint at its widest point is ~64,000sqft, lot area and footprint arent always the same so they shouldnt be used interchangeably. Similarly this tower has a lot area of 53,000 but the footprint itself may not extend that full 53,000 sqft.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #831  
Old Posted May 1, 2024, 12:22 PM
ChiND ChiND is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2023
Posts: 264
NY Guy said that 405-417 is 53,000 sf. See Post 820. Perhaps I misunderstood what he said.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #832  
Old Posted May 1, 2024, 1:19 PM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 52,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyHigher View Post
out of interest what is the footprint sf of 1-4 WTC?
Not sure, but they are larger, and don’t comply to city zoning.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiND View Post
NY Guy said that 405-417 is 53,000 sf. See Post 820. Perhaps I misunderstood what he said.
No, I said this site is 53,000 sf. That 405 site is a little smaller than the 425 Park site. It’s not large at all, it just has Park Avenue frontage, and is likely less than 20,000 sf.



Quote:
Originally Posted by TKD View Post
270 Park ave may have a lot area of 80,000sqft but its actual footprint at its widest point is ~64,000sqft, lot area and footprint arent always the same so they shouldnt be used interchangeably. Similarly this tower has a lot area of 53,000 but the footprint itself may not extend that full 53,000 sqft.
The total sf of 270 Park is based on the full 80,000 sf footprint. All of the towers that require plazas still base their allowable built space on the actual size of the lot.
__________________
NEW YORK is Back!

“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #833  
Old Posted May 1, 2024, 1:47 PM
ChiND ChiND is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2023
Posts: 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYguy View Post
Not sure, but they are larger, and don’t comply to city zoning.




No, I said this site is 53,000 sf. That 405 site is a little smaller than the 425 Park site. It’s not large at all, it just has Park Avenue frontage, and is likely less than 20,000 sf.
Thanks. Is that for the combined site? This building would only be about 450k-500k sf then.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #834  
Old Posted May 1, 2024, 1:47 PM
TKD's Avatar
TKD TKD is offline
March Forward
 
Join Date: Mar 2022
Posts: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYguy View Post
The total sf of 270 Park is based on the full 80,000 sf footprint. All of the towers that require plazas still base their allowable built space on the actual size of the lot.
I understand that part but you shouldnt use footprint and lot area as interchangable words.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiND View Post
Thanks. Is that for the combined site? This building would only be about 450k-500k sf then.
I just explained that. The combined lot area is 20,012 sqft. But it has not been mentioned that the 2 lots will be combined yet I dont believe.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #835  
Old Posted May 1, 2024, 7:55 PM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 52,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKD View Post
I understand that part but you shouldnt use footprint and lot area as interchangable words.
The discussion was centered on determining what could be built elsewhere, which is based on lot size, which for this purpose is virtually the same thing. I think they understand the difference between the footprint of an actual designed tower, and the lot as a whole.

An example of how that works for 270 Park.



__________________
NEW YORK is Back!

“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #836  
Old Posted May 2, 2024, 3:14 AM
ChiND ChiND is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2023
Posts: 264
Citadel keeps minting money. This is good news for its future New York palace!

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-checkout=true
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #837  
Old Posted May 2, 2024, 7:08 PM
Ahoi's Avatar
Ahoi Ahoi is offline
Mulan M.
 
Join Date: Feb 2022
Posts: 245
350 Park Ave. is a future skyscraper, not a palace. A palace is something completely different for me.
__________________
Xiyang Lou (Versailles of the east)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #838  
Old Posted May 3, 2024, 12:39 AM
ChiND ChiND is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2023
Posts: 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ahoi View Post
350 Park Ave. is a future skyscraper, not a palace. A palace is something completely different for me.
I would expect no different sentiment from a Disney princess like Mulan.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #839  
Old Posted May 3, 2024, 1:07 PM
BuildThemTaller BuildThemTaller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Long Island City, NY
Posts: 1,017
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiND View Post
I would expect no different sentiment from a Disney princess like Mulan.
Remember when you were pretending to be a high school kid from the Midwest? That was weird.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #840  
Old Posted May 3, 2024, 1:22 PM
ChiND ChiND is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2023
Posts: 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuildThemTaller View Post
Remember when you were pretending to be a high school kid from the Midwest? That was weird.
You wouldn’t believe how hard it is to convince the locals at the Sheboygan lunch counter that NYC is not Sodom and Gamorrah. I feel like I’m in a Pace Picante commercial from the 1980s. (My grandpappy showed me those commercials on YouTube.)


Last edited by ChiND; May 3, 2024 at 1:33 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Proposals
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:07 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.