Source: http://www.greatgridlock.net/NYC/nyc.html

Height: 687 ft/ 209 m
Floors: 51
Year: 1962
Architect: Emery Roth & Sons

was built in 1958-1964 on the site of a McKim, Mead & White apartment house from 1925.
Located opposite the Union Carbide Building, these two presented the latest trend in skyscraper design, started with the Seagram Building further up the avenue, with their soaring towers set on pillars -- the 277 in fact taking the style of its entrace canopy from the Seagram's.

The buildings employ a similar style of black steel spandrels and soaring white mullions framing the dark-tinted glass -- although here the vertical mullions alternate with narrower black ones, as opposed to their more "dominating" presence on the neighbouring building's facade -- and the building is at 209.5 m of approximately the same size.

The 50-storey building houses 139,400 m² of space within the tower and the set-back additions flanking it on the sides.

The building was acquired in 1980 by the Chemical Bank as its world headquarters, which relocated from the 20 Pine Street in Downtown Manhattan. The 1996 merger with Chase Manhattan marked a move across the street to the ex-Union Carbide Building.

In 1982 the three-storey, glass-walled Chemcourt Atrium by Haines Lundberg Waehler was added to the Park Avenue side of the building, complete with trees, shrubs, plants and a fountain.

http://mywebpage.netscape.com/rotpics02/277parkav03.jpeg

http://www.greatgridlock.net/NYC_Images/862.jpg

http://mywebpage.netscape.com/rotpics02/277parkav02.jpeg

http://www.nycskyscrapers.com/parkavenue/images/dlj.jpg

http://mywebpage.netscape.com/rotpics02/277parkav01.jpeg

it's a box. 5.5/10

6.5/10

Its ok I guess.

look at the facade in the 2nd pic, it's ugly! 5.5/10

If it's ugly,then why are you still giving a decent mark? :)

And i agree with you that's it ugly 4.5/10

This is one of the buildings that represents the 60s - maximum space with minimum design effort. It's one of the buildings that has absolutely no place and doesn't deserve to be where it is, or even exist.

I usually like boxes but I hate this one. 5/10

that second pic. is awesome, 8

6
Looks like a bigger St. Helen's, but a bit uglier. I'm not too keen on this one, but it's got height. :)

Originally posted by The Messiah

If it's ugly,then why are you still giving a decent mark? :)

And i agree with you that's it ugly 4.5/10

umm.. that is a low mark man:)

4.0

makes me sleepy, nightmares probarbly

It looks like my university. Chaos in a boring box....http://skyscrapercity.com/images/smilies/sleepy.gif

Another box. Boring! 4/10 Next.....

Very New York, 6/10.

4.0

first pic is sweet, but the second is just...errrrr


6/10

call a demolition squad please

looks like a european skyscraper to me. 5/10

5

Bleh.

Originally posted by Roch5220

looks like a european skyscraper to me. 5/10

huh ? :?

An ugly box ! 3.5/10

5/10...Sometimes it looks good when the light is right, then again that's sometimes.

fucken box -1!

It's a very boxy box, but the I like it on the second pic. 6.5/10

Rather anonymous.......ehm....just let it function.

6/10

4

just a box

btw: those boxy towers are important for the street scene, for the whole density what makes a skyline or street scenes interesting. But the tower itself is ugly...

5/10

5.5/10


ugly box

Ugly box

5/10

5/10

A bit boring, but good for Park Avenue massing.

4/10 That's just sick.

Very average glass box. < 3.5.

too simple. It easily gets lost among its neighbors............5

6.5

Very plain and ordinary; what else can you say?

5.5

If the glass windows matched, and the top didn't have that horrible black covering, i'd give it a higher score. 5.5/10

5/10

7/10

Erm.....Probably 0 due to it's disgusting looking facade.

so boxy.. 7

4/10

boxy but kinda fits that area very well

6.5/10

Uninspiring and unworthy for New York City. I give it a 5/10. :(

decent box, 7

boxy but the reflectiveness of the glass and cross section pannels give it some features
4/10

I really hate this glass!! Horrible facade
4/10

7/10

A typical NYC box

6/10

As much as I love NYC, I have to say this one disgraces it. 1.

5.5/10.

6/10

A simple box with an ugly facade
4/10

6.5/10
Don't think it's as bad as everyone says

6/10

This box looks old... 6/10

it's just your average '60s nyc box. at least it doesn't look dull or anything. not much to say about it.

7

6.5 it´s a box

what a hell box 5/10

5/10

Box, just a box... 6/10

8/10

box and ugly...4.5/10

5/10

5/10

BOX, 5/10

5.5/10.

This is ugly. 3/10...

The base is nice, the rest is OK. 6/10

5/10

4.5/10 maybe it was hit back in the day, but its completley dated and ugly. the pictures dont help. it does look better in person and it does look a lot taller than it really is in person. but still.. yuck.

I give it a 6.5

A 10

it is what it is , functional , spacious and corporate! :)

It's allright but not really convincing. 7/10

8/10

5.5/10..

8/10

2/10

3/10

7/10

no no no Boring 3/10

6,5/10

a classic one.......6!

a box, 7.5/10

7/10

7 - 7.5/10

4/10

I went to manhattan a couple of months a go and i don't remember seeing this one, forgettable box i guess.

5/10

Horribl horrible horrible

3.5/10

3/10

8/10

5/10

7/10

5.5/10.

7.5

4/10

4.5/10

another lovely box. although not that tall. 6.5/10

7/10

... considering it's from the early 1960's.

7/10

5.5/10

7/10

4,5/10

7/10

6/10

7/10

4/10

5/10.

It's a ugly box 5/10

3.5

It makes Metlife look good !!!!

I gave it a 5 but it is probably a 3 or 4. I gave it 5 because it is in midtown adding to the density but that is all that can be said for this worthless box.

10/10 ^^

boring box......

5.5

Nothing of interest here.
4/10

4/10

not bad 7/10

i usually like boxes, but not this one, 4/10

7,5/10
guite a nice box actually

6/10

5/10

7/10

7. Regards.

7/10

6/10

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b1/277park.jpg/450px-277park.jpg

9/10

9/10

7/10

5/10