NEW YORK | 270 Park Ave | 1,389 FT | 57 FLOORS

[NYguy]

https://commercialobserver.com/2018/...e-to-be-saved/

Does 270 Park Avenue Deserve to Be Saved?





BY REBECCA BAIRD-REMBA
MARCH 28, 2018

The disassembly of buildings like Union Carbide is exactly what the city intended when it dramatically upzoned Midtown East in August 2017. Mayor Bill de Blasio’s administration hoped that the new zoning would encourage the redevelopment of the area’s century-old office stock, which has been eclipsed by newer buildings in hipper parts of Manhattan.

Still, preservationists were shocked to hear that 270 Park would meet the wrecking ball. “270 Park was not even identified as a development site” because the building already took up much of the site’s potential floor area, said Simeon Bankoff, the president of the Historic Districts Council. “Honestly it took everyone I know by surprise. The rezoning really changed the rules for development in East Midtown.”

When Union Carbide bites the dust early next year, the 1.3-million-square-foot structure—which occupies a full block between Park and Madison Avenues and East 47th and 48th Streets—will be the world’s largest voluntary demolition. It will take that title from the Singer Building, the 47-story, 612-foot tall skyscraper at 149 Broadway that was constructed in 1908 and torn down in 1967 to make room for One Liberty Plaza.

Robert Knakal, the chairman of New York investment sales at Cushman & Wakefield, pointed out that once the bank considered the cost of land in Midtown, it was cheaper to demolish and rebuild at 270 Park than to buy another site and try to develop it.

“If that was a vacant lot today, the land value would be arguably approaching $1,000 a square foot,” he said. “So by the time they demolish the building, their land basis is going to be less than that. And that’s a heck of a lot less than it would be today.” (Land basis equals what you paid for the property, plus the cost of capital improvements and construction.)

Construction experts predict that it will take at least a year to demolish the 700-foot-tall property, which will have to be torn apart mostly by hand.

First, in order to prevent dust and debris from affecting neighboring buildings or people walking by, the project’s contractor will shroud the building in scaffolding or netting. Then workers will have to remove any harmful materials, like asbestos and lead paint, and use hand tools to remove windows, fixtures and doors. The deconstructing of the building comes next. Metal facade panels would be carefully removed by hand. Excavators—like BobCats—and smaller tools would likely be used to break apart the concrete slabs of each floor, although some projects have deployed demolition robots to accomplish the task. In the final steps of the demolition, workers would take acetylene torches to the steel beams and superstructure, cutting the steel into smaller pieces floor by floor.

Ken Colao, of CNY Construction, explained the demolition of such a large building offers an opportunity to think about more efficient ways to take apart skyscrapers. “New regulations need to be developed with the building department to address the demolition of large-scale developments,” he said. “The current method—to enclose it with scaffolding and dismantle it by hand with small equipment—would be too time consuming.”

The contractors on 270 Park could use cranes to remove large pieces of the building. And disassembling the steel frame could be faster if workers cut through pieces of steel, and then a crane lifted the steel onto a truck, he said.

[patriotizzy]

NOOOOOOOOO. Only hard to reproduce buildings should be saved. Which is why I am always for preserving old ornate buildings. They aren't and won't be reproduced anytime soon because of expenses. However, this box could easily be replaced because it has nothing of interest or of value. The only value this holds is the fact that it is one of the first buildings of its era. Who cares? A label means nothing when it physically holds no substance.

[Busy Bee]

^While I don't think preservation here is at all justified, I totally disagree with your "ornamentation" based metric for determining what is and what is not worth historic preservation. To translate this idea to say the art world, are works of art of intense complexity and detail the only works worth celebrating? Of course not. What makes any work of art significant, and by extension architecture, is not based on it's monetary replacement cost or how much intricate "irreplaceable" detail it possesses, but instead whether or not the work represents a significant or groundbreaking example of a style or epoch. 270 Park Avenue, while a nice, high quality slab of mid-century high modernism, falls short of being hailed as significant in any regard.

[WhatTheHeck5205]

Originally Posted by patriotizzy

NOOOOOOOOO. Only hard to reproduce buildings should be saved. Which is why I am always for preserving old ornate buildings. They aren't and won't be reproduced anytime soon because of expenses. However, this box could easily be replaced because it has nothing of interest or of value. The only value this holds is the fact that it is one of the first buildings of its era. Who cares? A label means nothing when it physically holds no substance.

How much value 270 holds is a matter of opinion. A lot of people, especially millennials, happen to quite like midcentury modern architecture, mainly because of the cultural impact of shows like Mad Men. It might even make sense for Chase to acquire and replace one of the smaller, crappier midcentury towers on the blocks between 270 and Lever House and pursue a residential conversion of 270 as has been done with 10 Hanover Square in FiDi, with the revenue from condo sales at 270 going towards the purchase price of the other building. Call it “The Lofts at Union Carbide” or something. “Your chance to live like Don Draper.”

[Amanita]

Originally Posted by PhyllisJerry71

How much value 270 holds is a matter of opinion. A lot of people, especially millennials, happen to quite like midcentury modern architecture, mainly because of the cultural impact of shows like Mad Men. It might even make sense for Chase to acquire and replace one of the smaller, crappier midcentury towers on the blocks between 270 and Lever House and pursue a residential conversion of 270 as has been done with 10 Hanover Square in FiDi, with the revenue from condo sales at 270 going towards the purchase price of the other building. Call it “The Lofts at Union Carbide” or something. “Your chance to live like Don Draper.”

I'm just a year or two older than a true millennial, but I've definitely got a thing for a lot of buildings of that time period. Walking up 6th Avenue between Bryant Park and 57th street, or down Park Avenue from 57th to just below Grand Central makes me feel like I'm surrounded by friends, in a way.
Heck yes I'd live in 270!

[Zapatan]

Does 270 Park Avenue Deserve to Be Saved?

It's not a terrible building, but there's nothing that special about it either. If getting rid of it means another beautiful, modern 1,250+ foot supertall in midtown then no, it shouldn't be saved.

[chris08876]

The Midtown East rezoning and its outcome will see a lot of towers or existing properties either bite the dust, or see renovation/expansion. 270 Park is a hell of a 1st major project, and as of now, there are folks who want to save it. Okay... one tower that is... but is this something that will repeat each time a property will be demo'd or modified? Point being, 270 Park is the 1st of many.

At some point, we can't save them all, otherwise, what good was the point of the rezoning passing anyways?

In a nutshell, for Midtown East to remain competitive, it must see a change. Some existing towers down the line may bite the dust, but its the cost of keeping the district relevant. Given the high cost of developing in the district, we should not expect the whole district to disappear or dramatically change, no, but some towers will (addition/renovation/possible demo).

Its an interesting dynamic. Often, rezoning is equated with an apocalyptic scenario of the whole area being different, but such is not the case. We win some, lose some... we just have to accept. NYC is not a museum, and the fluid nature of skyscraper development has shown the dramatic change of some district(s), but at the same time, many still keep elements that made them great.

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by PhyllisJerry71

How much value 270 holds is a matter of opinion. A lot of people, especially millennials, happen to quite like midcentury modern architecture, mainly because of the cultural impact of shows like Mad Men. It might even make sense for Chase to acquire and replace one of the smaller, crappier midcentury towers on the blocks between 270 and Lever House and pursue a residential conversion of 270 as has been done with 10 Hanover Square in FiDi, with the revenue from condo sales at 270 going towards the purchase price of the other building. Call it “The Lofts at Union Carbide” or something. “Your chance to live like Don Draper.”

The younger generation that developed an appreciation and interest in MCM because of some show on cable is peripheral at best. The celebration of MCM architecture/graphic design/furniture design/textile design was something that was already happening and an idea who's time had come well before Sterling Cooper.

Just like the 1950's saw a renewed interest in the gay nineties, the 1960's and 70's a renewed interest in Art Nouveau, the 1980's and 90's a rebirth of Art Deco appreciation and influence, the 2000's saw the next natural rejuvenation and retrospective in MCM. In the 2010's you've already seen more interest in 1970's mod and though I hope Memphis is skipped, I fully expect the 80's to start getting thrilled on (outside of vaporwave and other counterculture) as this is just the natural course of style revival.

[Amanita]

These 60's and 70's buildings are in an awkward spot ATM. Older, but not quite old enough to be seen as historic and appreciated for that, except by a small number of people. It's hard to believe now, but there was once serious talk of tearing down the Brooklyn Bridge because it was "old and outdated", but not quite old enough to be loveable.
Nobody's asking for the whole district to be turned into a snow globe- notice that 425 Park Avenue didn't get such protests when it met its fate. Although to be fair, 425 wasn't torn down completely- I look at what's happening to it as a metamorphosis of sorts, changing and reshaping behind that cocoon-like shroud they wrapped it in, but not going away. There are lots of other buildings in the area that few if any people would protest this happening to.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by patriotizzy

NOOOOOOOOO. Only hard to reproduce buildings should be saved. Which is why I am always for preserving old ornate buildings. They aren't and won't be reproduced anytime soon because of expenses. However, this box could easily be replaced because it has nothing of interest or of value. The only value this holds is the fact that it is one of the first buildings of its era. Who cares? A label means nothing when it physically holds no substance.

I don't think the people who want to save this building want to save it for its looks so much as for an "idea", or what it supposedly represents. It was built at the time of blah, blah, blah, it's built in the style of blah, blah, blah.

New York has an excess of many things, buildings of this type being one of them. It's not something that needs to be saved. The district as a whole is something that needs to be preserved, and I'm not just talking about it's buildings, but it's purpose. And that purpose sadly, is not to be a museum, no matter how much many may want it to be.

[WhatTheHeck5205]

Originally Posted by NYguy

I don't think the people who want to save this building want to save it for its looks so much as for an "idea", or what it supposedly represents. It was built at the time of blah, blah, blah, it's built in the style of blah, blah, blah.

New York has an excess of many things, buildings of this type being one of them. It's not something that needs to be saved. The district as a whole is something that needs to be preserved, and I'm not just talking about it's buildings, but it's purpose. And that purpose sadly, is not to be a museum, no matter how much many may want it to be.

I certainly don’t speak for everyone who wishes to see this tower preserved, but what it “represents” has nothing to do with it for me. I want this tower preserved because, while it may not be an icon, it’s a fine building overall, and it’s entirely possible that what replaces it may not be nearly as good. When you’re talking about a site as large and visually prominent as this one, that’s an immense amount of risk—not to mention completely unnecessary, as there are numerous smaller buildings in the area on sites as large, or nearly as large, as this one. Many are far inferior architecturally to this tower, and, quite frankly, should be demolished. These midcentury buildings are certainly not all equal in quality, and are certainly not as dime-a-dozen as you suggest—especially ones the size and quality of 270 Park. It may not be equal to Seagram or Lever House, but its facade detail and texture, quality of materials, and elegant proportions are above average compared to most other buildings of the period, and even many glass towers being constructed today. After Seagram and Lever, 270 is probably the most deserving example of this style for preservation—and doing so is hardly turning Midtown East into a “museum.” As I’ve said, there are plenty of other sites in the area, and additionally, 270 is only outdated as a bank building. It is still a perfectly viable office building for almost any other type of tenant (or even residential use, as I suggested). In fact, 277 Park, a building almost as old as this one, continues to attract new tenants including major law firms—and as far as I’m aware, it has not been upgraded to nearly the same extent 270 has. I want this building preserved because there is simply no valid reason to tear it down, from either an architectural or economic standpoint. The only purpose it serves is to satisfy Jamie Dimon’s ego.

[The Best Forumer]

so are they going to tear it down?

[Amanita]

Originally Posted by PhyllisJerry71

I certainly don’t speak for everyone who wishes to see this tower preserved, but what it “represents” has nothing to do with it for me. I want this tower preserved because, while it may not be an icon, it’s a fine building overall, and it’s entirely possible that what replaces it may not be nearly as good. When you’re talking about a site as large and visually prominent as this one, that’s an immense amount of risk—not to mention completely unnecessary, as there are numerous smaller buildings in the area on sites as large, or nearly as large, as this one. Many are far inferior architecturally to this tower, and, quite frankly, should be demolished. These midcentury buildings are certainly not all equal in quality, and are certainly not as dime-a-dozen as you suggest—especially ones the size and quality of 270 Park. It may not be equal to Seagram or Lever House, but its facade detail and texture, quality of materials, and elegant proportions are above average compared to most other buildings of the period, and even many glass towers being constructed today. After Seagram and Lever, 270 is probably the most deserving example of this style for preservation—and doing so is hardly turning Midtown East into a “museum.” As I’ve said, there are plenty of other sites in the area, and additionally, 270 is only outdated as a bank building. It is still a perfectly viable office building for almost any other type of tenant (or even residential use, as I suggested). In fact, 277 Park, a building almost as old as this one, continues to attract new tenants including major law firms—and as far as I’m aware, it has not been upgraded to nearly the same extent 270 has. I want this building preserved because there is simply no valid reason to tear it down, from either an architectural or economic standpoint. The only purpose it serves is to satisfy Jamie Dimon’s ego.

So much this, 100% this. To what you said, I'll add the issue of sustainability. That building's mechanical systems are only about 6 years old at this point, the building was renovated from the guts out to LEED platinum standards just a handful of years ago. There are brand new buildings that don't measure up to that standard. To tear down a building like this would be an incredible waste. Literally the only thing wrong with this building is that its sole tenant (Chase Bank) has outgrown it. To many other tenants, this would still be a perfectly good, even outstanding building. I'll second what you said about 277 Park (A building designed to be an almost twin to, or at least to compliment this one), that building is set to receive some renovations in the next couple of years, (See my 277 Park Avenue thread in the Buildings and Architecture forum) and it seems to be doing quite well for itself. I'd even argue that 277 and 345 Park are two other fine mid century buildings on the Avenue, but you're right that there are a lot of others nearby that are far more deserving of redevelopment (or at least the 425 Park treatment) than this one.

[pico44]

Thirded. It just so wasteful. I'd say only a quarter of the midtown streetscape is worthy of preservation. If that. And this isn't a building on the bubble, this is a no-brainer.

[Amanita]

For the stretch of Park Avenue from 57th street to Grand Central, I'd add 450 Park to the list of good buildings. 450's small, but it's got a very distinctive appearance, in addition to being beautifully maintained. Its only issue is the patch of exposed brick where Hotel Drake used to sit right up against it, and that's fixable. (It's already been fixed to some extent, I just wish they had made the new windows match the distinctively shaped ones original to the rest of the building)
425's already getting a makeover- it's now almost as tall as it originally was, so it's in good hands. Who knows what might happen to 245 Park? In the right hands, that one could be improved too.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by PhyllisJerry71

I certainly don’t speak for everyone who wishes to see this tower preserved, but what it “represents” has nothing to do with it for me. I want this tower preserved because, while it may not be an icon, it’s a fine building overall, and it’s entirely possible that what replaces it may not be nearly as good.

Sorry, but that's not a good enough reason to save it.


Now, assuming this tower starts coming down next year as planned, we could be looking at one skyline marker going up, and one tower coming down for another skyline marker...


https://www.instagram.com/p/BhMeYvDB...y=danielzahler

[Sky88]

NYguy, for you what the tower will look like. A super box or a tower with an spire?

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Sky88

NYguy, for you what the tower will look like. A super box or a tower with an spire?

It will likely be boxy, but I would love something with a crown or a spire to stand out.

[JMKeynes]

Originally Posted by NYguy

It will likely be boxy, but I would love something with a crown or a spire to stand out.

I think that Dimon will seek an unparalleled landmark. This will not be a mundane 1,250’ Tower.

[WhatTheHeck5205]

Originally Posted by NYguy

Sorry, but that's not a good enough reason to save it.

Okay but like what about the dozen other reasons people have given?! Or are you guys that blindly devoted to your height-equals-design mentality?

Look, either way, it’s out of our control, so at this point I’m just gonna sit tight and see what happens. For all I know the new design will come out and I’ll end up liking it. If it isn’t good, though, you can bet I’ll be standing on Park Avenue with a “Save 270” protest sign.