http://designyoutrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/425-Park-Avenue-skyscraper-by-Foster-+-Partners.jpg
http://designyoutrust.com/2012/10/425-park-avenue-skyscraper-by-foster-partners/


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303592404577360350749941564.html?mod=WSJ_NY_LEFTForthStories

Planning New York's Next Iconic Building .

By ELIOT BROWN

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/NY-BP525_NYTOWE_DV_20120422202221.jpg

Nearly a half century after much of Park Avenue's high-end corridor of office buildings were built, developer L&L Holding Co. is advancing plans for a new tower.

Aiming to create an iconic, eye-catching building in the place of a 1950s-built boxy tower at 425 Park Ave., L&L last week reached out to 11 top architectural firms to join a competition to design a new tower. The list included Norman Foster, Richard Rogers and Jean Nouvel, each of whom have won architecture's top Pritzker Prize.

L&L Holding Co. has asked 11 top architects to submit designs for a new tower at 425 Park Ave. "We want to work with the best architectural minds out there, because we have some very important things to achieve and to deal with," says David Levinson, L&L's chief executive.

Mr. Levinson says he hopes to begin demolition work in 2015 and to finish the new building two years later. The price tag on the project is expected to be about $750 million, he says.

The bold plan to knock down the bulk of the existing building and to put a new one in its place reflects Mr. Levinson's faith in the value of the site. Currently the building is mostly leased with tenants including the white-shoe law firm Kaye Scholer.

But Mr. Levinson is planning to vacate the building on the bet that he'll be able to substantially boost rents once he replaces it with a modern, attractive design. While older, unremarkable buildings similar to the current 425 Park Ave. tend to fetch annual rents in the $50-to-$70 per square foot range, top architectural icons the Seagram Building at 375 Park Ave. easily win tenants paying over $100 a foot.

The plan still faces high hurdles. For starters, Mr. Levinson needs to attract financing for the project at a time that the Manhattan office market shows some signs of weakness due to the downturn and the contraction of the financial services industry.

Mr. Levinson believes great architecture will enable him to attract tenants and financing. He hopes the building's design will be achieve the same distinction as the Seagram Building or the Lever House at 390 Park Ave., both of which are considered modernist icons.

Vishaan Chakrabarti, a former city planning official and director of Columbia University's Center for Urban Real Estate, is directing the competition for L&L. "We think it could be a jewel, and given where it sits, a crown jewel," Mr. Chakrabarti says.

Park Avenue has been largely static for at least four decades. The bulk of the office towers were erected in the 1950s and 1960s on platforms over rail tracks leading into Grand Central Terminal.

Most of the towers were built with a boxy design that creates a relatively uniform feel for the wide boulevard. The most recent large office building to be constructed was 499 Park, at 59th St., built in 1980, although it doesn't take up the full block.

Complicating the redevelopment for 425 Park and other buildings on Park Avenue is a quirk of the city's zoning code that would force Mr. Levinson to build a smaller tower if he demolished the existing building in its entirety. To avoid this, Mr. Levinson plans to leave in place the steel skeleton for the bottom 25% of the building, the minimum required.

The Bloomberg administration has told landlords it is considering boosting the development rights for office building owners in parts of eastern Midtown. But that plan would likely take at least another year and a half before it would be finalized, and Mr. Levinson has said he needs to begin planning now under the current rules.

L&L partnered with Lehman Brothers in 2006 to buy the long term lease on 425 Park. Lehman still has a stake in the building, although it is looking to exit all its real estate investments over the next few years.

Write to Eliot Brown at eliot.brown@wsj.com

All part of Bloomberg's upzoning in East Midtown that should yield some very interesting towers in the future! :cheers:

Wow They will demolish a large building ... I hope they can make a very modern building and super high. Still going very close to the 432 Park Place. It seems that Bloomberg's dream will come true. Just a pity that this will be demolished in 2015 and be built later (if the world does not end at the end of this year). :lol:


EDIT: I was reading this part:
"Complicating the redevelopment for 425 Park and other buildings on Park Avenue is a quirk of the city's zoning code that would force Mr. Levinson to build a smaller tower if he demolished the existing building in its entirety. To avoid this, Mr. Levinson plans to leave in place the steel skeleton for the bottom 25% of the building, the minimum required.

The Bloomberg administration has told landlords it is considering boosting the development rights for office building owners in parts of eastern Midtown. But that plan would likely take at least another year and a half before it would be finalized, and Mr. Levinson has said he needs to begin planning now under the current rules. "

And... It's a shame that Mr. Levinson will not wait for the upzoning to build something higher, since the rezoning it will take to be done, and the company wants to start planning early on this project. But let's see, a lot can change.

http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2012/07/11/four_starchitects_are_battling_for_park_avenue_victory.php#more


Four Starchitects Are Battling for Park Avenue Victory
Wednesday, July 11, 2012, by Dave Hogarty

The decision to choose who will be the designer of Park Avenue's next great tower is down to four finalist starchitects: Norman Foster, Rem Koolhaas, Zaha Hadid, and Richard Rogers. Vishaan Chakrabarti of Columbia University's Center for Urban Real Estate and SHoP Architects is directing the competition for L&L Holding Company, which wants to rebuild the existing block-long pile of white brick and glass between 55th and 56th Street as an esteemed Park Avenue skyscraper to rival the Seagram Building and Lever House. According to The New York Times, the four architects and their firms were selected by David W. Levinson. Their plans for 425 Park Avenue were being laid out in a series of presentations that began yesterday and should conclude today.

The four starchitects' visions for the address will be made public (and we'll welcome your opinions in our comments), but Levinson doesn't give a crap what the public thinks about the entries. He's preparing to spend three-quarters of a billion dollars to build an iconic skyscraper. “It is a decision that is solely within our discretion." Those hoping for something truly unprecedented and exciting should dampen their expectations. Prior to the competition, Levinson told the four finalists not to let their egos and creativity get the best of them. He wants "restrained elegance."

In NYC "Restrained elegance" = box. :lol:

Here's an early mockup by L&L of what 425 Park Ave can accomodate.
(Under the current zoning code. A new up-zoning of the area could launch this project into the stratosphere.)

http://nyoobserver.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/425_park.jpg?w=150&h=437
http://observer.com/2012/07/everybody-but-frank-gehry-four-top-starchitects-finalists-for-425-park-redesign/

According to the article in today's NY Times, L&L had the architects draw plans based upon current zoning and based upon the enhanced zoning proposed by the Mayor.

I know it's not the real design, but I wish they would build it like in that picture above! :(

That mock up design looks better than many others!

I hope Foster wins it. His Hearst addition is masterful.

I hate this developer is a really stupid pearson he want only be advertising with great names, but in reality, he will choice the most chip and boring of these project.
he is false or stupid because asked for new icon and call the starchitect famous for exuberance and icons but after puts limits to their creativity ! is like you buy ferrari but with mandatory limit to the motor...
Icon? goodbay icon , will be a simple mannersit neomodernist lever house copy....
shit

yes a simple boring box, without financial structural problems,but he announced :" i want an eye catching icon":ohno:!
hahhahahahah

This could send 425 Park Ave to the moon:

City Planning Presents Midtown East Rezoning Plan (http://therealdeal.com/blog/2012/07/12/city-planning-presents-midtown-east-rezoning-plan/)

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/NY-BT606A_NYMID_G_20120711193007.jpg
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303919504577521411010664218.html


While a new pedestrian plaza near Grand Central Terminal has grabbed the headlines this week, it’s really just a small aspect of a widespread rezoning of Midtown East to which Mayor Michael Bloomberg is reportedly pinning his legacy.

Bloomberg News reported that the Department of City Planning presented the mayor’s preliminary vision for the rezoning, which is aimed at encouraging modern office development in Midtown East, to Community Board 5 yesterday.

The plan would allow for building owners to acquire air rights to build as high as 900 feet in the area immediately surrounding Grand Central. Outside the “core” area, on the blocks bounded by Lexington and Madison avenues and East 39th and East 49th streets, towers of 700 feet would be permitted. According to the New York Observer the floor-area-ratio limits would increase to 24 for the core area, and 21.6 outside the core. Elsewhere in Midtown East the allowable FAR would rise to 18 from 15.

However, to acquire these rights, developers would be required to obain “a new special permit,” which would be limited to key sites where developers promise to fund improvements to pedestrian areas and transit hubs. They can also purchase air rights from nearby landmarks.

The community board voiced concern about further congesting its neighborhood, but supported the “basic core” idea, according to its chairwoman.

Bring back International Style modernism! 432 Park is the loneliest box in NYC! I really hope something along the lines of that render will be built.

This is nice but no landmark, which the location warranted. It will be interesting to see more images of the crown, which will consist of three vertical prongs.

http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2012/10/03/norman_foster_will_design_new_tower_at_425_park_avenue.php

Starchitecture of the Future
Norman Foster Will Design New Tower at 425 Park Avenue
Wednesday, October 3, 2012, by Sara Polsky

http://ny.curbed.com/uploads/425parkfosterdesignlarge_10_12.jpg
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/10/02/blogs/20121003Foster2/20121003Foster2-blog480.jpg

Four starchitects—Norman Foster, Rem Koolhaas, Zaha Hadid, and Richard Rogers—faced off for the chance to redesign 425 Park Avenue, a rather soulless pile of brick and glass between 55th and 56th streets, into the next Seagram Building or Lever House. And the winner is…Norman Foster! The Hearst Tower architect submitted a conceptual proposal (shown above) that "features a tapered steel-frame tower rising to meet three illuminated shear walls, adding to the vibrant New York City skyline. The conceptual design also calls for an elegant façade that seamlessly integrates with the innovative internal arrangement that allows for three gradated tiers of column-free floors," according to the archibabble in a press release.

The bigger idea behind that "innovative internal arrangement" is that the workplace is changing and 425 Park Avenue needs to accommodate that. David Levinson, chairman of site developer L&L Holdings, explains to the Times that office space these days needs "places where you can have an intersection of ideas, areas of collaboration," and Foster's design includes many such common spaces. L&L plans to start building the thing in 2015 and have it ready in 2017. Better luck next time, Hadid, Rogers, and Koolhaas!

Here's a larger version of that Foster conceptual design:

Big deception.
:(

not bad, looks to be ~250m with the crown

Pretty good i think. Look at those floor heights in the bottom section, and the high plinth, there's a good sizes square underneath this skyscraper. It sure would make the surrounding area a nicer place.

Too Chinese looking.

I quite like it, but I only have seen the frontside:), that frame reminds me of the base of the Transamerica Pyramid.

Too Chinese looking.

Too chinese looking??? Why???

Very poor design.

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/storyimage/CN/20121003/REAL_ESTATE/121009966/AR/0/425-Park-Ave.-rendering&q=100&MaxW=800

New york again lost architecture chance(last time was hudson yards the bigger new project of banality....and Steven Holl a new yorker genius build in china..... )
New york is not more the avant gard capital the creative center.If you want bold new avant gard architecture , you need to fly to china , new york go down , fall...lose position in fight to international new capitals of the world.
Which is the sense if you take Zaha hadid and rem kohlass and put them constraints? is like buy a ferrari and put limit in the power motor.... but at least Zaha or rem with costraints were more creative that foster ..this competition it sound like advertising ' for press .........take avant gard interneational world famous arch genius , when you know that the choice will be the more chip to build and more conservative...
New Icon? hahahhhahaha the foster is a banal parody of the lever house mixed with foster hong kong bank ....
poor new york ....at least i hope for Libeskind in Madison park...

But i think there is no problem , because will be never builded : 2015 ahhahaahahah not serious start in 2015 ,is to far ,it is a joke , is only alittle bit of advertising for L e L

pretentious (about structure) boring modernist banal box .

Bring back International Style modernism! 432 Park is the loneliest box in NYC! I really hope something along the lines of that render will be built.

The entire block is surrounded by International Style buildings, save for 417 Park Avenue which survived the Uris Brothers era.

Too Chinese looking.

Too Chinese looking? Chinese buildings tend to be inspiring and the best of global architecture firms. The design for this tower is awful!

I sort of agree with giorgio righi riva, but I'm not 100% sure what he's saying. New York City really needs to pull its head out of the sand and stop appealing to Jane Jacobsonian cultural Marxists that turned the city into Hell's gate during the 1970s. The government needs to appeal to and incentivize the international business elite to keep the city the financial capital of the world, let alone the United States. Only then can there be solid proposals that ultimately get built.

I miss Giuliani and Bloomberg when there was an "R" next to his name.

pretentious (about structure) boring modernist banal box .

With all the repsect - you know nothing about architecture. And edit you post next time.

I have a feeling this won't rise until the re-zoning; why would you waste 300K sf of air rights?

Yeah I like it. The Park Ave is booming. :cheers2:

The design seems to me to be pretty medicore, kinda like the Hudson Yards :dunno:

I like it, especially the bottom. Looks very classy.

I don't really understand why this tower is getting so much hate. I think it's quite nice, from the one rendering.

Anyway, New Yorkers will have the opportunity to see the design in more detail. From, The Observer (http://observer.com/2012/10/foster-partners-wins-425-park-sweepstakes-creating-new-midtown-landmark-for-ll/):

"...For those eager to get a look at all of Foster + Partner’s designs for 425 Park, as well as the three losing proposals, they will be on display Oct. 18 and 19 as part of the Municipal Art Society’s annual MAS Summit, to be held at Jazz at Lincoln Center..."

The design seems to me to be pretty medicore, kinda like the Hudson Yards :dunno:

i like the hudson yards tower designs

You want fancy designs? Go live in Moscow, then.
And yes, in my opinion, this looks like the dime a dozen chinese condos.
Oh well, at least there is a new tallest NY building near to it that will be International Modernist. :)

New york again lost architecture chance(last time was hudson yards the bigger new project of banality....and Steven Holl a new yorker genius build in china..... )
New york is not more the avant gard capital the creative center.If you want bold new avant gard architecture , you need to fly to china , new york go down , fall...lose position in fight to international new capitals of the world.
Which is the sense if you take Zaha hadid and rem kohlass and put them constraints? is like buy a ferrari and put limit in the power motor.... but at least Zaha or rem with costraints were more creative that foster ..this competition it sound like advertising ' for press .........take avant gard interneational world famous arch genius , when you know that the choice will be the more chip to build and more conservative...
New Icon? hahahhhahaha the foster is a banal parody of the lever house mixed with foster hong kong bank ....
poor new york ....at least i hope for Libeskind in Madison park...

wow, i could hardly understand any of that

I like the design but I think the top should be the third curve. Having two curves and a flat top doesn't seem to keep with the flow of the building to me.

I am very curious to see the crown from the west.

http://www.fosterandpartners.com/News/481/Default.aspx

03/10/2012
Foster + Partners wins competition for new tower at 425 Park Avenue, New York

Foster + Partners is delighted to be selected by a partnership of L&L Holding Company and Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (LBHI) to design their new office tower at 425 Park Avenue. The new building will create an enduring landmark that befits its exclusive location, and is uniquely of its time and its place.

The project presents an outstanding opportunity to contribute to the existing character of Park Avenue and responds to the scale and datum of the Avenue and neighbouring buildings. Clearly expressing the geometry of its structure, the tapered steel-frame tower rises to meet three shear walls that will be illuminated, adding to the vibrant New York City skyline. Its elegant facade seamlessly integrates with the innovative internal arrangement that allows for three gradated tiers of column-free floors.

Offering world-class sustainable office accommodation, the new building anticipates changing needs in the workplace with large, open spaces that encompass flexible use. Each of the three tiers – low, medium and high-rise – is defined by a landscaped terrace that provides an excellent amenity for tenants and offers panoramic views across Manhattan and Central Park. At the street level, the conceptual design for 425 Park Avenue gives as much to the City as to the people that will work in it with the potential for a large civic plaza marked by significant works of art.

Lord Foster said:
“I have a personal connection with New York, which has been a source of inspiration since my time at Yale, when the new towers on Park Avenue and its neighbourhoods were a magnet for every young architect. Seeing first-hand the works of Mies van der Rohe, Gordon Bunshaft, Eero Saarinen and Philip Johnson was tremendously exciting then – I am delighted to have this very special opportunity to design a contemporary tower to stand alongside them. Our aim is to create an exceptional building, both of its time and timeless, as well as being respectful of this context – a tower that is for the City and for the people that will work in it, setting a new standard for office design and providing an enduring landmark that befits its world-famous location.”

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/storyimage/CN/20121003/REAL_ESTATE/121009966/AR/0/425-Park-Ave.-rendering&q=100&MaxW=800

^^

Judging from that one rendering it looks like the crown will look similar to the TWC, looking from the East or West that is. I definitely plan on going to see this in more detail and the other, rejected designs, on either the 18th or 19th so hopefully I can report some good news.

not bad, looks to be ~250m with the crown

This new proposal by Foster+Partners will most likely be a high rise, not a skyscraper (40 stories and probably < 650 ft). So I'm moving the thread. Should we learn different, then a change in status will naturally follow.

guess i was in denial for a little bit there :ohno:

i like the hudson yards tower designs

So do I. From what I've seen, pretty much every tower blows this design away.

You want fancy designs? Go live in Moscow, then.
And yes, in my opinion, this looks like the dime a dozen chinese condos.
Oh well, at least there is a new tallest NY building near to it that will be International Modernist. :)

Not for long, hopefully.

This new proposal by Foster+Partners will most likely be a high rise, not a skyscraper (40 stories and probably < 650 ft). So I'm moving the thread. Should we learn different, then a change in status will naturally follow.

As per the NY Observer, the new tower will be "nearly twice as tall" as the current one. The latter is 388 feet high; thus, the new tower should be at least 750 feet tall.

As per the NY Observer, the new tower will be "nearly twice as tall" as the current one. The latter is 388 feet high; thus, the new tower should be at least 750 feet tall.

I'd like to see more confirmation of that. Most 40 story commercial office towers range between 500-600 ft. The articulated core/tower might push it to 700 ft in which case this thread can be returned to Skyscrapers with little effort. ;)

I'd like to see more confirmation of that. Most 40 story commercial office towers range between 500-600 ft. The articulated core/tower might push it to 700 ft in which case this thread can be returned to Skyscrapers with little effort. ;)

I assume that the Observer newspaper has correct info.

first we want others projects rendering for comparative discussion.
Is always right respect the past,the architecture surround? with conservative,sober,correct ,modest,mediocre,without dream and mental flight architecture ? or sometimes we need brave and bold people to break with the past , transgress...
if you always respect the past and the place,never will born the new again.

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/146450859/original.jpg
http://www.crainsnewyork.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/storyimage/CN/20121003/REAL_ESTATE/121009966/AR/0/425-Park-Ave.-rendering&q=100&MaxW=800

It would be nice if this had exterior elevators on the eastern facade.

I love the tiered design and white angled columns, and the lower- and mid-level gardens add a nice touch. The crown is especially interesting, with the large vertical slabs behind the upper garden area. Can't wait to see this built!

Looks pretty good. :)
it is a bit difficult to estimate the height, I would say just over 200 meter.

It's supposedly around 750 feet.

There's a public exhibition of the various entries in the competition for this commission on Oct. 19. Maybe we can learn more details then.


Mr. Levinson also announced that he and Mr. Foster will make a presentation on the conceptual design during the Municipal Arts Society's third annual Summit for New York City on Oct. 19.

Read more: http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20121003/REAL_ESTATE/121009966#ixzz28SmSnrlO

Each of the three segments will have its own little outdoor garden with trees.

That Park Ave. allure:

425 Park Ave. 1957

http://i405.photobucket.com/albums/pp131/netmole/Gottscho-Schleisner%20Collection/5a24902v-1.jpg
http://netmole.blogspot.com/2008/12/samuel-gottschos-new-york-city-views.html

Begin construction in 2015? Seriously... :bash:
The design is good, not amazing, but good. I was not expecting something "phenomenal" right here.

It's amazing how NYC looked nicer in 1957 than it does today. For example (it's just one little thing), whoever's idea it was to replace those street lights with God-awful cobraheads is a disgrace to the country. That is all.

Also, Chevy Bel Airs destroy every Crown Vic taxi and hybrid piece of junk that seems to be the only things allowed on Manhattan streets today. So I suppose that wasn't all...

The Central Building looks so romantic.

Nice pic! If you love old NYC and didn't see it, take a look at this great thread:
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=34300

Interesing note from Wired NY:


According to our source, the designers each presented two different proposals, one in which the 25 percent provision was considered and another where the building could be torn down and replaced at the current floor-area-ratio with no restrictions, at an FAR of 18. There was no discussion of the recently announced Midtown East rezoning, which could allow buildings of exceptional quality to rise to a 24 FAR—50 percent bigger than the current zoning, a bonus that seems too tantalizing to pass up—because the plan had not yet been revealed.

So the renderings above are just the first of two options, based on available rights. A second set exists for the new upzoning which (we'd kill to see) might be kept under wraps until at least 2015 when construction is slated to either begin or be put off for the new parameters.

The current tenants don't vacate unil 2015. The proposed zoning regulations, which would permit a much taller tower, will be effective in 2017. I cannot imagine that L&L will forego the valuable opportunity to add more space.

The tower currently is around 230m with the crown. With the new zoning, L&L could add around 30% more space. Maybe they add high end condos, which would bring the tower over 300m.

Hey guys. I was checking out old cancelled supertalls in NYC on SSP such as Larkin and MetLife North and I came across this building, 425 Park. It was listed as cancelled there. Has the design been reconsidered or what?

The design seems to me to be pretty medicore, kinda like the Hudson Yards :dunno:

Kanto, you're a good guy, but you must be the only person who regards these inverted scissor towers of 300 and nearly 400m to be boring.

http://kpf.com/projects/Project125/16902_hr.jpg

Kanto, you're a good guy, but you must be the only person who regards these inverted scissor towers of 300 and nearly 400m to be boring.

http://kpf.com/projects/Project125/16902_hr.jpg

These towers are like blades thrusting into the sky. I don't consider them mediocre. Then again, Kanto has always been the one to want massively tall buildings of a boxy nature, from what I've read of his comments over the years. I disagree, and consider such towers a welcome addition to NYC's boxy landscape. The contrast with the surroundings will be sharp as a blade.
.

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/146450859/original.jpg


It would be nice if this had exterior elevators on the eastern facade.

honestly - pretty boring design... nothing inspiring really

honestly - pretty boring design... nothing inspiring really

Maybe, but it is one hell of a lot more inspiring than what was there :) Also, compared to most 60 and 70 style buildings, it also is far superior. The only real highlight for me is the nice use of a plaza and the bracing.

^^ The plaza is very nice.

Bloomberg Pushes a Plan to Let Midtown Soar (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/nyregion/mayor-bloomberg-pushes-a-plan-to-let-midtown-soar.html)

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/10/07/nyregion/SUB-JP-MIDTOWN-1/SUB-JP-MIDTOWN-1-articleLarge.jpg
NYT


London, Tokyo and other metropolises have created central business districts with forests of skyscrapers in recent years, seeking to meet the needs of globe-trotting corporate tenants. But New York’s premier district, the 70-block area around Grand Central Terminal, has lagged, Bloomberg officials say, hampered by zoning rules, decades old, that have limited the height of buildings.

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg wants to overhaul these rules so that buildings in Midtown Manhattan can soar as high as those elsewhere. New towers could eventually cast shadows over landmarks across the area, including St. Patrick’s Cathedral and the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel. They could rise above the 59-story MetLife Building and even the 77-story Chrysler Building.

Mr. Bloomberg’s proposal reflects his effort to put his stamp on the city well after his tenure ends in December 2013. Moving swiftly, he wants the City Council to adopt the new zoning, for what is being called Midtown East, by October 2013, with the first permits for new buildings granted four years later. His administration says that without the changes, the neighborhood around Grand Central will not retain its reputation as “the best business address in the world” because 300 of its roughly 400 buildings are more than 50 years old. These structures also lack the large column-free spaces, tall ceilings and environmental features now sought by corporate tenants.

The rezoning — from 39th Street to 57th Street on the East Side — would make it easier to demolish aging buildings in order to make way for state of-the-art towers. Without it, “the top Class A tenants who have been attracted to the area in the past would begin to look elsewhere for space,” the administration says in its proposal.

The plan has stirred criticism from some urban planners, community boards and City Council members, who have contended that the mayor has acted hastily. They said they were concerned about the impact of taller towers in an already dense district where buildings, public spaces, streets, sidewalks and subways have long remained unchanged.

Mr. Bloomberg has encouraged high-rise development in industrial neighborhoods, including the Far West Side of Manhattan, the waterfront in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, and in Long Island City, Queens. But with the proposal for Midtown, which is working its way through environmental and public reviews, he is tackling the city’s commercial heart. “Unlocking the development potential in this area will generate historic opportunities for investment in New York City,” Deputy Mayor Robert K. Steel said.

The initiative would, in some cases, allow developers to build towers twice the size now permitted in the Grand Central area. The owner of the 19-story Roosevelt Hotel at Madison and 45th Street could replace it with a 58-story tower under the proposed rules. Current regulations permit no more than 30 floors.

Administration officials acknowledged that the current market for new office buildings across Manhattan was relatively weak. For example, a 40-story office tower at 11 Times Square, at 42nd Street and Eighth Avenue, which was completed in 2010, is still not full. But the officials said major changes in zoning were intended to make it possible to build when demand returned, as history suggests it inevitably will. In promoting the proposal, the administration has repeatedly stressed that Midtown Manhattan needed to keep pace with business districts in other world capitals. And New York does compete with London for some financial firms.

But many of New York’s prominent corporations, law firms and other businesses are not about to decamp for a spectacular skyscraper in Hong Kong anytime soon. Part of the obsession with taller buildings is about prestige and worldwide bragging rights, for size and architectural supremacy.

By the city’s estimates, the new towers would be home to an additional 16,000 employees in a neighborhood that now has 230,000 office workers. That could strain the Lexington Avenue subway line, which runs through Grand Central and is already operating well above capacity. “Massive new buildings could be constructed,” said Michael B. Gerrard, an environmental lawyer working with the Municipal Art Society to review the proposal. “They’re proceeding at a breakneck pace,” he said, referring to Bloomberg aides. “The administration wants to get all this done before the gate closes.”

[...]

Here's a study for how a megatall would look in midtown Manhattan. There's a lot of talking here about how NY needs one, and I guess with the rezoning around Grand Central it could become possible to build towers this size but I think it'd be a little too early for sg this big. You'd want a few of those ~1500 footers first, so it doesn't look totally out of place...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/gabcs/7934958036/

Here's a study for how a megatall would look in midtown Manhattan. There's a lot of talking here about how NY needs one, and I guess with the rezoning around Grand Central it could become possible to build towers this size but I think it'd be a little too early for sg this big. You'd want a few of those ~1500 footers first, so it doesn't look totally out of place...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/gabcs/7934958036/

I've seen this study a while ago already. Though the design is not perfect...it would look great in the skyline :).

Rem Koolhaas had the best proposal.
http://observer.com/2012/10/unveiling-competing-designs-for-425-park-david-levinson-says-he-will-not-wait-for-midtown-rezoning/#slide28

Anyway, here's Foster's tower from the east:

http://nyoobserver.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/citicorp_midtown.jpg?w=600

http://nyoobserver.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/121001_nf_sketch_inverse_richblack.jpg?w=275

Surprisingly... Hadid's project was the best I think (with Rem's)! So she can design with context after all. Nice to know.

And those interiors... :drool:

I wonder if the 687 foot height includes the crown.

Norman Foster's proposed redesign of 425 Park Avenue was the victor in a four-starchitect face-off to determine the future of the blah brick and glass building between 55th and 56th streets. Developer L&L Holdings will begin work on Foster's design in 2015, and it should be done in 2017. While we wait for it to begin construction, Foster's design and the three runners-up, by Rem Koolhaas, Zaha Hadid, and Richard Rogers, are on display at the Municipal Art Society's Summit for New York City. We got our hands on the renderings, so let's hold our own face-off, shall we? Above, some new looks at Foster's design, "a tapered steel-frame tower rising to meet three illuminated sheer walls." The 41-story, 687-foot building has low, medium, and high-rise tiers "defined by a landscaped terrace with panoramic views across Manhattan and Central Park," according to the exhibition materials by Foster + Partners. "The core is placed to the rear, where glazed stairwells reveal long views towards the East River, while at street level, there is potential for a large civic plaza with significant works of art."

I'm personally glad foster's design has been chosen. Zaha's proposal wasn't bad and I wouldn't mind it build somewhere in ny but for me organic designs doesn't quite fit into the ny skyline. Koolhaas's design was also something that surely wouldn't destroy the skyline but still being just an average glass tower that would fit well somewhere in wtc or Hudson yards complex. Foster's proposal truly says New York and the interiors and skygardens are incredible. Some pictures:

http://nyoobserver.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/screen-shot-2012-10-18-at-9-35-44-am.png?w=600

http://nyoobserver.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/121018_amenity_level_external_resample.jpg?w=600

http://nyoobserver.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/121018_amenity_level_resample.jpg?w=600

http://nyoobserver.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/amenity_level1.jpg?w=450

http://nyoobserver.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/offices_midrise1.jpg?w=600

http://nyoobserver.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/typical20office1.jpg?w=600

'Ogranic' part of the project wouldn't be visible in the skyline. 2/3 of this tower is a really nicely cladded box.


http://nyoobserver.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/mth_zh_pat_view01_sunset_a05_op1_bump.jpg?w=360

Fits just great!

A pity it wasn't chosen :(

As I said it isn't bad. I even say I quite like it as for organic architecture. I just think it's right behind foster's proposal IMO. As for the interiors I have no doubt. Foster is winner here. Straight lines all the way! ;)

Btw seems like Zaha don't have much lack in skyscraper sector. Does any of her skyscrapers got build? I feel like she proposes many towers but they often got rejected or never build. I guess it's due to the complexity of those structures. It looks like every piece of panel fabricated for her towers has to be unique in shape and that sure isn't cheap.

^^

Na, she doesn't have anything in New York. I think Foster's design was best also. Although the fins on top are far too tall from this angle, but I'm knitpicking a building that probably won't be built anyway. The developer will probably just wait for the upzoning so they can build something much taller.

http://nyoobserver.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/citicorp_midtown.jpg?w=600

Rem Koolhaas had the best proposal.
http://observer.com/2012/10/unveiling-competing-designs-for-425-park-david-levinson-says-he-will-not-wait-for-midtown-rezoning/#slide28

Anyway, here's Foster's tower from the east:

http://nyoobserver.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/citicorp_midtown.jpg?w=600

http://nyoobserver.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/121001_nf_sketch_inverse_richblack.jpg?w=275

From this angle, with those 3 blades far more visible the design looks much better than from the street. Also, thanks to a higher up view of them it doesn't look fat (fatness is by far my biggest objection against the Hudson Yards), as it did in the view up from the street :cheers:

The developer will probably just wait for the upzoning so they can build something much taller.


But still designed by Foster, right? Maybe even just taller version of winner design.

^^ If it would be just a taller version of the current design, then Foster would be a probable choice, however, if they would want a new design, they would most probably start a new competition :cheers:

http://nyoobserver.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/425_121008_street-view-corrected_final.jpg?w=241

Rem Koolhaas' tower would have been an instant icon

Some better renderings of OMA's proposal, taken from the article about the design on ArchDaily (http://www.archdaily.com/283593/425-park-avenue-omas-proposal/).
http://i1158.photobucket.com/albums/p612/trolltind/425ParkAvenue1x1000.jpg
Illustration by OMA (http://oma.eu/)

http://i1158.photobucket.com/albums/p612/trolltind/425ParkAvenue4x1000.jpg
Illustration by OMA (http://oma.eu/)

http://i1158.photobucket.com/albums/p612/trolltind/425ParkAvenue2x1000.jpg
Illustration by OMA (http://oma.eu/)

http://i1158.photobucket.com/albums/p612/trolltind/425ParkAvenue3x1000.jpg
Illustration by OMA (http://oma.eu/)

But still designed by Foster, right? Maybe even just taller version of winner design.

L&L's CEO stated in one of the many articles today that he's not waiting for the rezoning.

Two big ones from Hadid:

http://blog.archpaper.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/425park_zaha_01.jpg

http://blog.archpaper.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/425park_zaha_02.jpg

Looks pretty good.

Oh man...that one is just :puke:

Out of all the designs, they chose the ugliest one. :ohno:

L&L's CEO stated in one of the many articles today that he's not waiting for the rezoning.

So 200m Foster is what we are getting. I'm perfectly fine with that.

Out of all the designs, they chose the ugliest one. :ohno:

I'm glad it's your ugliest, not mine ;)

So 200m Foster is what we are getting.

yes.

:banana: I love this tower!!!

http://blog.archpaper.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/425park_foster_01.jpg

http://blog.archpaper.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/425park_foster_00.jpg

http://blog.archpaper.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/425park_foster_05.jpg

http://blog.archpaper.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/425park_foster_07.jpg

http://nyoobserver.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/425-foster-1-mb.jpg

http://blog.archpaper.com/wordpress/archives/48329

I like the fins' appearance better from the back. It gives the tower an art deco appearance from the rear.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8327/8100063101_f83d463419_z.jpg

I love them all, except #3 there.

Surprisingly... Hadid's project was the best I think (with Rem's)! So she can design with context after all. Nice to know.

And those interiors... :drool:

I agree, but i didn't like Rems's.

This should turn out beautifully. Foster will use very high-quality materials.

It should be around 800 feet tall to the top of the spire.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8327/8100063101_f83d463419_z.jpg

Which one was agreed upon here? Far right? I like them all too (except #3). I think the furthest-right is most "New York." Second from left is quite beautiful as well.

Well, I like design of Foster, but I prefer the design by Hadid, is insane. Anyway I am satisfied.

Well, I like design of Foster, but I prefer the design by Hadid, is insane. Anyway I am satisfied.

L&L did say that they were interested in using these architects for projects in the future. And I think Hadid was aware because she value-engineered the top of her tower. If she wasn't serious about winning their business, she would have produced a more visionary but economically unfeasible design.

In the end, it's really nothing special. Regardless, it's better than what's there at the moment, and at least nothing historical is being destroyed.

Love the fins on the top, if it is built with those on top then that would be awesome!

The Zaha Hadid design is just fantastic :cheers:

^^ I would love to see that being built. :)

^^ Yup, the Hadid design is far better than what will be built there :cheers:

I am quite disappointed with Hadid. Its design is like a mix of Aon Tower in Chicago, and Verizon Building in NYC with an extraterrestrial base. :ohno:

Hadid's proposal is a bit "shapy" i think... Not designed from user perspective but more as a pretty form standing inside a plexiglass box on a table. Kinda glad Foster won, thinking it will add nicer spaces to the city :)

Wow I missed this, thanks Robert for getting this going. I am thrilled with the prospect of a Norman Foster building on Park Avenue...this is fantastic.
Now if they would just get 2 WT back under way!!! (In my mind the best of the 4 WTC buildings)

Wow I missed this, thanks Robert for getting this going. I am thrilled with the prospect of a Norman Foster building on Park Avenue...this is fantastic.
Now if they would just get 2 WT back under way!!! (In my mind the best of the 4 WTC buildings)

My pleasure, mate. :cheers:

some bigones of old renderings and floor plan of one of the floors with sky garden.

http://static.worldarchitecturenews.com/news_images/21026_5_vishaan5.jpg

http://static.worldarchitecturenews.com/news_images/21026_4_vishaan4.jpg

http://static.worldarchitecturenews.com/news_images/21026_3_vishaan3.jpg

http://static.worldarchitecturenews.com/news_images/21026_6_vishaan6.jpg

Is that Daniel Libeskind??! Bottomleft corner, second to last picture... ;)

The exterior is boring, but the interior is spectacular.

Is that Daniel Libeskind??! Bottomleft corner, second to last picture... ;)

LOL, looks like him :hilarious

The exterior is boring, but the interior is spectacular.

It's no Torre Verre, but it's hardly boring.

http://www.archilovers.com/upload/StoryResources/7cb1f973-274a-4b13-8e83-abf64a1ff938.jpg

Holy shit that's awesome!

That's a pretty cool entrance. :)

Although I preferred the designs by Rem and Hadid, this will still be quite impressive.

http://www.frameweb.com/media/files/118482

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/10/02/blogs/20121003Foster2/20121003Foster2-blog480.jpg

More good images are available at:

www.425parkave.com/

enjoy:
http://www.dezain.net/2012/21866 !!!

Delete.

No

NY's status as world financial capital is fueling a massive construction boom during a deed worldwide recession. Imagine the list of projects when the economy is booming.

NY's status as world financial capital is fueling a massive construction boom during a deed worldwide recession. Imagine the list of projects when the economy is booming.

that really is so true lol i didnt think about how the rest of the world is in a slump yet ny is building all these towers lol

NY's status as world financial capital is fueling a massive construction boom during a deed worldwide recession. Imagine the list of projects when the economy is booming.

Perhaps then the investors in real estate will move elsewhere. ;)

If i remember correctly, i've read an article that drew a line between economic recessions and building booms troughout
the last century. It would be rather lucrative to build when times are tough, getting better deals and lower costs.

bigger renders:

http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/539/425parkavenue4x1400.jpg

http://i1158.photobucket.com/albums/p612/trolltind/425ParkAvenue1x1600.jpg

http://i1158.photobucket.com/albums/p612/trolltind/425ParkAvenue2x1600.jpg

http://i1158.photobucket.com/albums/p612/trolltind/425ParkAvenue3x1600.jpg

I'd love to see this in a render with a view in which there would be 432 Park too :drool:

by the way : http://www.skyscrapercenter.com/new-york-city/425-park-avenue/14787/

855 ft with those fins

I felt it must be much taller than 200m :) So almost a supertall then :cheers:

Those fins are way too large.

Better large fins that are actually a part of the design than another huge pointless spire on the box.

Midtown has more than enough spires.

^^ That's true. The fins appear at least from 2 of the 4 sides as part of the building.

Better large fins that are actually a part of the design than another huge pointless spire on the box.

Agree, these fins look quite good to me. But a spire would destroy that design

Yes they fit in quite nicely though I do hope that they add some curvature or design to them. They seem just a tad bland imho.

They (the fins) have one awesome feature which is the lighting (at least it looks like lighting on the renders). Maybe not by the design itself (which is nicely balanced but not iconic) but by those three neons going all the way to the top at night this tower will make one of the most recognizable spots on the skyline. Kind of the impact China Bank makes in the Honk Kong skyline :cheers:

51939042

The design presentations of each of the 4 finalists are now up on youtube:

Hadid:
v1Ozpk9tcFs

OMA
KwrXhHKwLvU

Rogers
L7cAGAyWQ1Y

Foster
vi-o1FRhNmg

Sir Foster: "Celebrating the setback" :)

I can understand why that proposal won by the way. All except* Foster were
trying to sell pretty shapes. Foster's presentation focussed more on the desire
to create beautiful spaces.

Thanks for uploading those bytheway!

*And Rogers maybe

Beautiful tower!!!

http://www.archdaily.com/294594/425-park-avenue-foster-partners/

:)

Nice tower. Especially those fins are pretty cool. This could be a new iconic building for the city.

Not a bad looking design. :cheers2:
I personally liked the Zaha Hadid proposal better, but this one fits New York the best.

Ugh, why did he take the setbacks into consideration? That was one of the most stupid zoning ordinances the city ever adopted.

Considering the present, a better question would still be, "why is this building so boring compared to Heart Tower and 50 UN Plaza?

Ugh, why did he take the setbacks into consideration? That was one of the most stupid zoning ordinances the city ever adopted.

Considering the present, a better question would still be, "why is this building so boring compared to Heart Tower and 50 UN Plaza?

Setbacks are useful and increase quality of life in such a densely packed city, especially with all the tall canyons everywhere. People don't want 1000 foot sheer walls towering right over them as they walk the narrow streets of NY. I agree though that the setbacks should depend on the surrounding area and height of the towers.

They usually pick the most cost efficient designs, that is just the way it works. It seems quite obvious that it would be far costlier to build some of the other more ostentatious designs. However, I disagree with you on UN Plaza, that isn't an exciting tower at all. Park avenue is also conservative, and this tower fits in with that theme even though I also would have prefered the Hadid tower.

Setbacks are useful and increase quality of life in such a densely packed city, especially with all the tall canyons everywhere. People don't want 1000 foot sheer walls towering right over them as they walk the narrow streets of NY. I agree though that the setbacks should depend on the surrounding area and height of the towers.

They usually pick the most cost efficient designs, that is just the way it works. It seems quite obvious that it would be far costlier to build some of the other more ostentatious designs. However, I disagree with you on UN Plaza, that isn't an exciting tower at all. Park avenue is also conservative, and this tower fits in with that theme even though I also would have prefered the Hadid tower.

I'm aware of what setbacks were intended to do. However, the whole canyon scare was a Progressive Era myth, which is why the law is no longer in place.

It didn't increase the quality of life for anybody, and instead created a whole generation of mutilated-looking buildings, many of which replaced beautiful pre-1916 high-rises.

Look at Hong Kong. You literally have streets flanked by one tower after another, and the street can still be an attractive place. It's not dark either, and the lack of street-lighting was the main reason the ordinance was adopted.

If the law is no longer in place, why are set backs required on so many towers?

Also, if you didn't have setbacks, there would be far more dull boxes with no definition at all in their facades. No thanks. At least set-backs give some boring boxy towers in NY some shape. Without them, developers would just maximize FAR and we would just get straight boxes everywhere which doesn't appeal to me.

^^ That law is no guarantee for set-back building. Many have built their towers further from the street with a plaza or very wide pavement, and so the towers remained boxy.
For example the Merchandise Mart Building at Madison Square Park.

If the law is no longer in place, why are set backs required on so many towers?

Also, if you didn't have setbacks, there would be far more dull boxes with no definition at all in their facades. No thanks. At least set-backs give some boring boxy towers in NY some shape. Without them, developers would just maximize FAR and we would just get straight boxes everywhere which doesn't appeal to me.

If setbacks are still required, why is every project apart from this straight up? Also, if you think smaller boxes on top of larger boxes is "shape," architecture must mean nothing to you. Besides, developers frequently used loopholes in the past, like building tiny plazas, which are essentially wider sidewalks, to construct the most space as they could.

If setbacks are still required, why is every project apart from this straight up? Also, if you think smaller boxes on top of larger boxes is "shape," architecture must mean nothing to you. Besides, developers frequently used loopholes in the past, like building tiny plazas, which are essentially wider sidewalks, to construct the most space as they could.

So, I didn't know something in the zoning code, so what? Stop making erroneous personal attacks regarding my interest in architecture... If I like buildings with setbacks over straight boxes and If I think that said elements give a building a more interesting shape, it does not mean 'architecture must mean nothing' to me. That is just ridiculous. :ohno: Stop making such wild assumptions about people and don't put people's subjective feelings on design down so easily if they don't agree with your own.. BTW, you are so wrong on that point.

^^LOL I don't see your point.

If setbacks are still required, why is every project apart from this straight up? Also, if you think smaller boxes on top of larger boxes is "shape," architecture must mean nothing to you. Besides, developers frequently used loopholes in the past, like building tiny plazas, which are essentially wider sidewalks, to construct the most space as they could.

Setbacks are not necessarily still required, however the sky exposure plane is still in effect, limiting how high a building can rise directly from the sidewalk before it must be setback. The 1961 zoning change altered the 1916 zoning, to allow buildings to rise straight up if they are setback from the sidewalk (basically think of the Seagram Building). That is why so many of the post-1961 office towers have a public plaza in front of their building. It is also why the tower portion of 432 Park Avenue is located directly in the center of its site. Furthermore, it was one of the primary reasons that the Torre Verre was subject review: because it impeded into the sky exposure plane. That said, there have been numerous alterations to the zoning code since 1961, and there are now contextual zoning districts that require consistent street wall, usually in exchange for reduced height limits.

With regard to the "wedding cake" style generated from the 1916 zoning code, it actually played a major part in creating the majority of NYC's most iconic skyscrapers. The Empire State Building, the Chrysler Building, Rockefeller Center, 40 Wall Street all are direct products of the setback requirements in the 1916 zoning code. Not to mention there are countless other buildings built during the 1920s and 1930s that utilize the classic "wedding cake" style across the City. You can hate it (I don't), but its a classic New York City architectural style not seen elsewhere. It seems Foster is giving homage to this heritage, which I think is a tasteful move.

The subsequent 1961 amendment is what I was referring to, as it was a result of the loophole the Seagram Building (et al.) took advantage of.

The "wedding cake" shape was actually picked up in cities internationally without such a zoning resolution, albeit they don't look as bad. As you said, it was more along the lines of the few good examples like the Chrysler and Empire State Buildings. I think main reason they look so good despite setbacks, is because of how tall they are. Regardless, to consider runty buildings like 120 Wall Street or 275 Madison Avenue unique and positive characteristics of NYC is absurd. It's like if Detroit were to embrace and promote its current blighted conditions.

Requiring setbacks because of an age-old myth that the street would get dark, and everybody would get sick and die, does nothing but impede upon the architect's vision of a building. While such a building is going away for this one, why not build something innovative? Foster is good at it, but this building begs to differ. Not chiefly because of the setbacks, but the fact it's another box or a few.

The subsequent 1961 amendment is what I was referring to, as it was a result of the loophole the Seagram Building (et al.) took advantage of.

I wouldn't call this a loophole per se, I think it was one of the primary purposes of the 1961 zoning change. Regardless, the sky exposure plane still plays a major role in the design of New York City buildings.

The "wedding cake" shape was actually picked up in cities internationally without such a zoning resolution, albeit they don't look as bad.

Examples?

As you said, it was more along the lines of the few good examples like the Chrysler and Empire State Buildings. I think main reason they look so good despite setbacks, is because of how tall they are. Regardless, to consider runty buildings like 120 Wall Street or 275 Madison Avenue unique and positive characteristics of NYC is absurd. It's like if Detroit were to embrace and promote its current blighted conditions.

This statement doesn't even make sense. You're comparing architecture to an urban condition.

Requiring setbacks because of an age-old myth that the street would get dark, and everybody would get sick and die, does nothing but impede upon the architect's vision of a building. While such a building is going away for this one, why not build something innovative? Foster is good at it, but this building begs to differ. Not chiefly because of the setbacks, but the fact it's another box or a few.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I think Foster's was the best of the bunch.

Examples?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/BoardOfTradeSearsTower.jpg

http://www.chicagosavvytours.com/Jewelers_Building_35_east_Wacker_Chicago.jpg
http://www.chicagosavvytours.com/Jewelers_Building_35_east_Wacker_Chicago.jpg

This statement doesn't even make sense. You're comparing architecture to an urban condition.

Really? I'm simply saying that it's not something for the city to be proud of.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I think Foster's was the best of the bunch.

OMA's was far superior to Foster's or Hadid's.

Regarding those images, I was more interested in your international examples. Chicago and New York share many similar building styles from this era.



Really? I'm simply saying that it's not something for the city to be proud of.

OMA's was far superior to Foster's or Hadid's.

We'll just have to agree that we have a difference in opinion on these two subjects.

Regarding those images, I was more interested in your international examples. Chicago and New York share many similar building styles from this era.

Funny, I often hear people say each always had their own distinctive separate styles...

Anyway, internationally:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6a/Shellmexhouse.jpg/800px-Shellmexhouse.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a9/Hotel_vanc_2007.jpg/432px-Hotel_vanc_2007.jpg

We'll just have to agree that we have a difference in opinion on these two subjects.

Sure.

Lehman to sell its majority stake in 425 Park Avenue (http://therealdeal.com/blog/2013/02/19/lehman-to-sell-its-stake-in-425-park-avenue/)

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/10/02/blogs/20121003Foster1/20121003Foster1-blog480.jpg
NYT


Lehman Brothers is looking to sell its 90 percent stake in 425 Park Avenue, the Wall Street Journal reported.

The 31-story, 567,340-square-foot building, located in Midtown East, is slated to be demolished and replaced with a 650,000-square-foot Norman Foster-designed office tower being developed by L&L Holdings, which owns the remaining 10 percent stake in the current building.

Lehman and L&L bought the property in 2006, and Lehman valued its 90 percent stake at about $84 million in 2007, according to bankruptcy documents viewed by the Journal.

It is looking to get far more than that amount for its stake, a source told the Journal, and has tapped Eastdil Secured to market the property. Earlier this month, Lehman sold a 21-story, 1.2 million-square-foot building at 237 Park Avenue to RXR Realty for $800 million.

Not much new floor area in the new tower while it has 10 more floors, anyway good to hear they will demolish it soon. I guess the same way as the Deutsche Bank Building.

^^ Smaller floor plans. :)

I guess so, although it doesn't look much smaller in the render.

i think New York has a good chance of getting the title back of the city with most 200m buildings. After all Hong Kong, Dubai and Shanghai are declining in their output by mass and Shenzhen, Guangzhou, Tianjin etc are still too far away to keep up within the next few years. :nuts:

i think New York has a good chance of getting the title back of the city with most 200m buildings. After all Hong Kong, Dubai and Shanghai are declining in their output by mass and Shenzhen, Guangzhou, Tianjin etc are still too far away to keep up within the next few years. :nuts:

Statistics like these are nice, but what is most important is better design for NYC.

What is the current ranking now?

^

#3, behind Dubai which is #1 with at least 63, that's the last number I saw but it's probably more. HK is #2 with 62, and NY has 58 including the topped out 1 WTC, 4 WTC, One57, and 1715 Broadway.

I guess so, although it doesn't look much smaller in the render.

The new tower is significantly taller than the old one (w/o factoring in the crown).

^

#3, behind Dubai which is #1 with at least 63, that's the last number I saw but it's probably more. HK is #2 with 62, and NY has 58 including the topped out 1 WTC, 4 WTC, One57, and 1715 Broadway.

Wow, amazing how Dubai just surged up there... i thought HK was still #1.. :ohno:

^

#3, behind Dubai which is #1 with at least 63, that's the last number I saw but it's probably more. HK is #2 with 62, and NY has 58 including the topped out 1 WTC, 4 WTC, One57, and 1715 Broadway.

Yeah, Wikipedia, although unreliable, has 70 down. It's likely there's more.

Wow, amazing how Dubai just surged up there... i thought HK was still #1.. :ohno:

But in 600 footers, HK has 104, while Dubai only has 87. Shows how fast Dubai's numbers slope off. NY is ahead of Dubai in 600 footers with 94.

@ RW: Yes, I know. It's just 118m but it has a massive base which gives it much floor area.:)

@ aquablue: I believe Dubai has 66, Hong Kong is hard to measure because there are tons of complexes like the Sorrento which has 5 towers over 200m, but if I count compexes as one I come to 43 and New York has 57.

^^ Wikipedia has HK down for 61 over 200m, though I didn't consider complexes.

I thought the current tower was nice as it is, until I realized there was an ugly blank concrete extension on the back part.

i think New York has a good chance of getting the title back of the city with most 200m buildings. After all Hong Kong, Dubai and Shanghai are declining in their output by mass and Shenzhen, Guangzhou, Tianjin etc are still too far away to keep up within the next few years. :nuts:

Hong Kong Yes, but Dubai and Shanghai are still building many 200m and even supertalls. If I could bet, I'd say Shenzhen will be the first city in the world that breaks 100 buildings 200m +

Hong Kong Yes, but Dubai and Shanghai are still building many 200m and even supertalls. If I could bet, I'd say Shenzhen will be the first city in the world that breaks 100 buildings 200m +

The biggest part of all high-rise or supertall projects in Dubai are on hold:(

Someone has plans of winning project?

Full steam ahead for L&L's close to perfect office tower:

http://www.rew-online.com/2013/03/13/full-steam-ahead-for-lls-close-to-perfect-office-tower/

Levinson’s L&L Holdings plans to break ground in 2015

I wouldn't call that full steam....

Well, the current 425 Park Avenue has to be demolished first.

^^ It wont be demolished. It will rather be integrated into the new building. Under current FAR rules, a demolishion, would lessen the allowed FAR.

IDK why they dont wait for the new FAR laws and build a massive supertall here.

Ok, a re-use is good too.

^^ It wont be demolished. It will rather be integrated into the new building. Under current FAR rules, a demolishion, would lessen the allowed FAR.

IDK why they dont wait for the new FAR laws and build a massive supertall here.

The overwhelming majority of it will be demolished. They're only keeping a portion of the base. If the rezoning goes through before the end of Bloomie's term, maybe they will build the bigger tower. L&L had all finalists submit designs with and without the rezoning bonus.

If the 2017 phase-in is eliminated, then L&L's current proposal by Foster will grow considerably.


Councilman urges faster midtown rezoning

City Councilman Dan Garodnick, who represents midtown east, is questioning a sunrise provision that would delay the start of the midtown east rezoning until 2017.

By Matt Chaban May 16, 2013 1:57 p.m.

City Councilman Dan Garodnick is casting a shadow over a sunrise provision in the Bloomberg administration's east midtown rezoning plan that would prevent the rezoning from taking effect until July 2017.

Mr. Garodnick, who will have the final say on the rezoning this fall, is calling for the elimination of the provision. He argues that with only two towers slated to go up immediately after the rezoning of the 73-block area, there is no reason to delay it. The rezoning, which is going through the public approval process, would allow for the construction of new office buildings in the area bounded by Fifth and Third avenues, between East 39th and East 57th streets.

"I asked the Independent Budget Office, the city budget director, the real estate board, and none of them could give me a clear answer on how slowing down the rezoning for a few years would help or hurt" development elsewhere in the city, Mr. Garodnick said.

The sunrise provision was introduced by the city Department of City Planning to prevent unwanted competition for other mega-projects, most notably Hudson Yards and the World Trade Center, that the city and state have already helped finance. The concern is that allowing new class A office towers to rise in midtown would undercut the leasing of these other projects.

After all, things are not exactly going well at the World Trade Center, and while The Related Cos. and Brookfield Properties Inc. have had better luck finding tenants on the far West Side, there are still millions of square feet of space to fill.

The two new projects most anticipated to be built immediately after the midtown east rezoning is approved are L&L Holding's 425 Park Ave. and an undisclosed tower by SL Green Realty Corp. and Hines on East 42nd Street and Madison Avenue, directly across from Grand Central Terminal.

The Department of City Planning stands by the need for the provision. "We've spent a lot of time studying this matter," a spokeswoman said.

Mr. Garodnick points out that the kind of companies looking in midtown, mostly banks and law firms, are different from those looking on the West Side or downtown, where the rents are cheaper.

"I just don't see how one or two buildings will have that big of an impact, especially if what City Planning says is true, and we desperately need these new buildings," Mr. Garodnick said. "I think we should study it more, but right now, there appears to be no rationale for pushing this development into the future."

However, some developers and brokers insist that it would be harder for them to lease space with newfound competition in the heart of midtown Manhattan. The community boards are equally concerned. Community Board 1 recently joined three in midtown to evaluate the rezoning because the downtown board is concerned about the World Trade Center.

"The World Trade Center campus will not be completed until 2019, so how we can begin to evaluate its success before then makes no sense," said Catherine McVay Hughes, board chair of Community Board 1.

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20130516/REAL_ESTATE/130519911