# NEW YORK | JPMorgan Chase World Headquarters | 423m | 1388ft | 60 fl | U/C



## djmaxliving

New York is in a league of it's own, trying to compare a Chinese city in a developing country with the likes of New York is not the same. New York has far better skyscrapers than in Beijing or shanghai for sure, quality is night and day.


----------



## Hudson11

moving through the process...

*JPMorgan files for air-rights transfer to boost new Midtown East tower*



> JPMorgan Chase filed plans this month to apply development rights from the landmarked Grand Central Terminal to the company's new tower planned for Park Avenue. The transfer of around *668,000 square feet of air rights* indicates progress on the project, which was announced earlier this year.
> 
> The bank filed the transfer application with the Department of City Planning Sept. 6. The agency will mull over the request before likely approving the measure and paving the way for the transaction.


a vintage photo to admire to pass the time...









Mary Moore Mason. “The Picture Book of the U.S.A. In Color” (New York. Diadem Books, 1974). via Vintage Manhattan Skyline on tumblr


----------



## LadyAmanita

^  

This tower deserves better..especially since it was completely overhauled only 6 years ago. What a waste.


----------



## Grunkfuss the Prius

^ I agree. I'm very hopeful and would love to see a giant tower to boost the rezoning along but this is probably one of my favorite international towers in this area. 

The sleekness, proportions, and that silver lining between the narrow windows just gets to me. I wish 277 could be replaced, or one of the other more awkward ones instead.


----------



## germantower

I wonder if they could get extra FAR rights if they would build public space on the location of the annex on Madison Avenue. It wouldnt need to be open, they could build an atrium or so. Just a thought.


----------



## Grunkfuss the Prius

I would like to see that happen. The tower could have a broad shoulder over the original, sort of like 23 Park Row or any other mid block building. Then again, it might make the original look out of place and would probably be very costly to link them.

Either way it is unfortunately coming down. I'm expecting something awesome but I will miss this tower.


----------



## LadyAmanita

Hands OFF 277! That's another of my favorites in the area, it and 270 look great together, like a pair of bookends, or like they were intended to be partners. There's lots of really outdated little buildings in the area, this one doesn't deserve to go.


----------



## goodybear

They should replace the MetLife instead :troll:


----------



## Hudson11

night view of midtown manhattan looking east from rca building april 1966 by eralsoto, on Flickr


----------



## Jay

If they're going to tear down a 700+ foot tower this better be good. 

I think it certainly will be though :cheers:


----------



## Architecture lover

If they want to destruct the original building, they should first show their final idea, or final render of what they're willing to construct.
Last thing we need here is a similar scenario to the Chickering Hall building (which was being evaluated for landmark status) when Vornado Realty, co-owners of the building, defaced it from its original ornaments to stop the process for protection because of their plans to redevelop the building. When they finally showed the actual renders (the original was already razed) everyone was in shock because they proposed a rather mediocre, overly simplistic building for its spot, that wasn't even tall.
One would think that at least in New York, there should be a law about what developers can do, and what cannot.
Showing renders of a final tower is a must, before proceeding with anything whatsoever.










My point, if they really show a megatall, everyone would be pacified in a way. If they want to built just another supertall then there are tons of other spots in New York. Such building of already great scale (like the Mid Century one) shouldn't go down just for something similar to get on its place, it's not even economically wise to do that.


----------



## LadyAmanita

I absolutely love this picture, it makes 270 and 277 look like a couple. You can see how 277 was designed to compliment 270.


And yes, I agree Chase should be able to show us something here. If they want to take away one of the best towers on Park Avenue, they should at least have to prove that they have a worthy successor.




Hudson11 said:


> night view of midtown manhattan looking east from rca building april 1966 by eralsoto, on Flickr


----------



## Hudson11

I'm cautiously optimistic for this new headquarters. I'd say there's maybe a 30/70 chance that JP Morgan Chase builds an architecturally significant tower rather than a corporate looking one. 

Some Chase architecture:

Chase Manhattan's former headquarters, now "28 Liberty" built in 1961.


One Chase Manhattan Plaza by Emilio Guerra, on Flickr

2200 Ross Avenue, Dallas. 1987


JPMorgan Chase Tower by Jeff Stvan, on Flickr

560 Mission Street in San Francisco, 2002:


JP Morgan Chase Building by Bill, on Flickr


----------



## MarshallKnight

I actually adore their San Francisco office. I wouldn't be heartbroken if wound up with a 1500 ft. version of that.


----------



## Hudson11

Looming by Tim Drivas, on Flickr


----------



## LadyAmanita

^That's a badass photo, I love how it looks like 270 and 277 are talking to each other.

Here's one I took, with something similar going on:


----------



## WillBuild

Replace 383 Madison instead.

That's an uninspired post-modern turd.


----------



## goodybear

^^Walking down Park Avenue that building stood out to me though. I like its dominance and clean lines. The lit crown is also a plus.








source


----------



## Hudson11

I would say 383 Mad is one of the better examples of postmodernism. I don't see it happening anytime soon, but the option is there and it is, in fact, part of the lucrative Vanderbilt corridor. I never would have said 383 would be a possible knockdown 2 years ago, but with Chase taking down 270 Park, my views on the matter had to be adjusted.


----------



## chjbolton

WillBuild said:


> Replace 383 Madison instead.
> 
> That's an uninspired post-modern turd.


Total disagreement.
Great piece of architectural history there; at least a good represent for its time I say.


----------



## LadyAmanita

I rather like 38 Madison, that crown looks great at night. I love Goodybear's pic, very flattering


----------



## Hudson11

Foster+Partners will be the design lead. 

*JPMorgan Turns to Apple HQ Architect for New Manhattan Tower*



> Foster + Partners will serve as the lead architect on the project, said bank spokesman Joseph Evangelisti. The JPMorgan building will be the second on the famous boulevard for the firm, whose founder, Norman Foster, is a Pritzker Prize winner. It also designed 425 Park Ave., under construction a few blocks to the north. The bank didn’t disclose details of the design.
> 
> [...]
> 
> JPMorgan plans to start construction next year, once it gets the necessary approvals, according to an earlier statement


Foster's NYC office towers











Chuck Choi


----------



## LadyAmanita

If we can't keep the current tower (weeping!!), we could do worse than Foster. I might have gone with KPF or SOM myself. Although considering that SOM designed the existing building, they might tell Dimon to go kick rocks if he approached them.


----------



## Munwon

Foster!!! OMG!


----------



## Uaarkson

I hope this design at least makes an attempt to remember the old 270 Park.


----------



## MarshallKnight

*NEW YORK | 270 Park Avenue | 366m | 1200ft | 70 fl | Pro*

Foster’s 2 WTC would actually fit pretty beautifully on this site... *douses thread in gas, drops lit match, walks away*


----------



## LadyAmanita

Uaarkson said:


> I hope this design at least makes an attempt to remember the old 270 Park.


Me too. If we really have to lose the existing tower, let's pay homage to it. Then, a new building might be considered a reincarnation of sorts.


----------



## germantower

LadyAmanita said:


> If we can't keep the current tower (weeping!!), we could do worse than Foster. I might have gone with KPF or SOM myself. Although considering that SOM designed the existing building, they might tell Dimon to go kick rocks if he approached them.


I doubt this is how a professional architecture firm would react.


----------



## Architecture lover

Were they serious with their proposal for 1WTC, or what? I am a huge lover of their work, but the tower they proposed looks as if it was kicked in the stomach. I only like the brownish appeal of the glass (in other renders). 
Thanks to Aphrodite they proceeded with Daniel Libeskind's proposal.


----------



## Hudson11

Architecture lover said:


> Were they serious with their proposal for 1WTC, or what? I am a huge lover of their work, but the tower they proposed looks as if it was kicked in the stomach. I only like the brownish appeal of the glass (in other renders).
> Thanks to Aphrodite they proceeded with Daniel Libeskind's proposal.


I view it in the same way I do BIG's plan. It's a rather fascinating design, but its a bad aesthetic for the World Trade Center that borderlines on the insensitive; Having a falling stack of blocks or bending twins standing over where two supertalls fell. Something like that anywhere else would be incredible.


----------



## NYCrulz

Thank god they didn't build that crap. I couldn't think of one place in US where it fits


----------



## Hudson11

hope for the best, expect a box. 

https://ny.curbed.com/2018/10/31/18049812/270-park-avenue-foster-partners-chase-union-carbide



> In a statement, Foster said he is “delighted” to be working on the new Chase HQ.* “The building design is set to respond to its historic location as well as the heritage of JP Morgan*, and we look forward to working with them to realise their vision for a new global headquarters for the company,” the statement continues.


----------



## LadyAmanita

germantower said:


> I doubt this is how a professional architecture firm would react.


I don't think they would literally tell Dimon to kick rocks, I'm sure there are more diplomatic ways to tell somebody to go away, or that you don't want to play with somebody who intentionally destroyed one of your historic projects.


----------



## germantower

^^ I seriously doubt that SOM would have rejected the job. Maybe you project your love towards this tower on SOM. SOM has done so many buildings all around the world. This is just one of many in their portfolio and one of the least known to the average joes.


----------



## TheIllinoisan

This better be a great design, considering what it is replacing. No tumoresque protrusions, no flat glass facade, no "sliced minimalism", no stupid random window scheme, and DEFFINITELY NO "ARCHITECTURAL" TWIG ON TOP. Really hope this doesnt end up being a taller BofA.


----------



## sbarn

TheIllinoisan said:


> This better be a great design, considering what it is replacing. No tumoresque protrusions, no flat glass facade, no "sliced minimalism", no stupid random window scheme, and DEFFINITELY NO "ARCHITECTURAL" TWIG ON TOP. Really hope this doesnt end up being a taller BofA.


I don't think it will be any of those things. I am expecting a boxy tower with expressed structural diagrid.


----------



## Hudson11

*!!!!!!!!!*

*JPMorgan Chase Plans Enclosed Public Plaza and Metro-North Access for 1,400-Foot Headquarter Building*



















as of right, Chase could build up to a whopping 477m/1566ft. They're pining for a 1400ft tower to create more desirable floor sizes. If anything, I wish I didn't know about the as of right version lol. It almost spoils what we will be getting...


----------



## TICONLA1

I would be saddened to see the union carbide tower, dismantled or demolished, just for 25 or so extra floors, this tower Imo is an icon of the international style of the mid 1950`s early 60`s and would be equal to tearing down the Seagram building or lever house, I understand that many of the international style/period buildings in NYC will be subject to the demolition question in the future, but not this one, it's an icon in the history of skyscrapers of that period, and I would be profusely bummed out at its loss, and for such little gain,


----------



## germantower

germantower said:


> I wonder if they could get extra FAR rights if they would build public space on the location of the annex on Madison Avenue. It wouldnt need to be open, they could build an atrium or so. Just a thought.


Regarding POPS. I have said this 6 weeks ago and it seems it will partially come true.


----------



## goodybear

Hmmm. I don't know what to feel about this proposal. If we get the no-action version (which I understand is highly unlikely) I would be thrilled, the height and shape seem really amazing. However, the with-action version just looks akward in my opinion with the fat base. The other version has a base that looks much more natural and also relates to the art-deco style. It reminds me of this:








source


----------



## Uaarkson

I'm thrilled that 10 years after the recession, large office buildings are being built again en masse. NYC hasn't seen a commercial office boom in nearly 30 years, and its existing stock is critically aged.


----------



## Manhattan Man

Instead of demolishing and building a new skyscraper, why can't JPMorgan Chase just move some of their growing staff into 2 WTC? Because after all Foster's design was meant for bankers. It's cheaper, faster, and right in the Financial District.


----------



## Hudson11

Manhattan Man said:


> Instead of demolishing and building a new skyscraper, why can't JPMorgan Chase just move some of their growing staff into 2 WTC? Because after all Foster's design was meant for bankers. It's cheaper, faster, and right in the Financial District.


They don't have to pay a lease if they own the building.  I think, if JPMorgan Chase still owned One Chase Manhattan Plaza, it might have happened. However, they are settled on Midtown East, and will play an important part of the district's modernization.


----------



## Uaarkson

Manhattan Man said:


> Instead of demolishing and building a new skyscraper, why can't JPMorgan Chase just move some of their growing staff into 2 WTC? Because after all Foster's design was meant for bankers. It's cheaper, faster, and right in the Financial District.


I'm sure there are reasons. Namely, space. This tower will also be almost 15 years newer in design.


----------



## SMCYB

germantower said:


> Manhattan is leaving one plateau behind and slowly creating a new one.


You beat me to it. Good thing the new plateau is 600 feet higher than the old one.


----------



## Twopsy

The city officials should really give more incentives to build tall. There was a time when more then 50 of the 100 tallest buildings in the world were in Manhattan. That dropped down to 4 or 5 over the decades. I don't know the number at the moment, but New York City should try to keep it at 10 or above in the long run.

It won't be long until a building has to be at more than 400 metres tall to be in the top 100. I hope they go for the 477 metre version and without any silly spire. 

At the moment constructing a building in New York City is much too expensive. This tower will probably cost $5 billion or more. We could much easier see some megatalls, if there was a way to build cheaper.


----------



## Manitopiaaa

Twopsy said:


> The city officials should really give more incentives to build tall. There was a time when more then 50 of the 100 tallest buildings in the world were in Manhattan. That dropped down to 4 or 5 over the decades. I don't know the number at the moment, but New York City should try to keep it at 10 or above in the long run.
> 
> It won't be long until a building has to be at more than 400 metres tall to be in the top 100. I hope they go for the 477 metre version and without any silly spire.
> 
> At the moment constructing a building in New York City is much too expensive. This tower will probably cost $5 billion or more. We could much easier see some megatalls, if there was a way to build cheaper.


Once every supertall under construction currently is complete, cracking the Top 100 will require 1,155 feet.

New York will have 9 of those Top 100:
#11	One World Trade Center 1,776 feet, Completed
#19	Central Park Tower 1,550 feet, Under Construction
#36	111 West 57th Street	1,428 feet, Under Construction
#42	One Vanderbilt 1,401 feet, Under Construction
#44	432 Park Avenue 1,397 feet, Completed
#60	30 Hudson Yards 1,268 feet, Under Construction
#68	Empire State Building	1,250 feet, Completed
#83	Bank of America Tower 1,200 feet, Completed
#84	45 Broad Street	1,200 feet, Under Construction

Of the Top 100 completed as today, 7 are in New York: the four "Completed" towers above + 3 WTC, the Chrysler Building and the New York Times Tower. The latter three will fall out of the Top 100 in the coming years.


----------



## germantower

I have a question regarding FAR. Do mechanical floors count into the FAR or is only commercially usable space FAR included?


----------



## Guest

> #11 One World Trade Center *1,776 feet*















+ They probably won't build much taller due the flight restrictions/air rights etc???


----------



## chjbolton

lol that's a great gif 
Great film too!


----------



## spectre000

germantower said:


> I have a question regarding FAR. Do mechanical floors count into the FAR or is only commercially usable space FAR included?


No they do not. Same for space used as stairwells, elevator shafts, etc.


----------



## Jay

TheProdigySkylined said:


> + They probably won't build much taller due the flight restrictions/air rights etc???


Likely not but who knows. The US (FAA) has a height limit of 2,000 feet. Perhaps that could also be changed? 

I'd like to see some nice 1,400 to 1,600 footers in NY and Chicago but beyond that I think height only matters to a certain extent.


----------



## germantower

I personally would like to have a Burj Khalifa magnitude tower at the MSG site. An icon that leaves the past behind, creates a new dramatic peak in the skyline and makes the city strive for a far grander version of itself and makes it innovate itself in the 21st century.


----------



## droneriot

Building a Burj Khalifa magnitude tower in Midtown Manhattan would probably cost $15 billion. Gotta factor in the cost of the plot, the logistics of getting the material there, the well-paid workers, the lawsuits by shadowphobic citizens, the ridiculous safety measures that would make it withstand a direct hit by a thermonuclear ICBM, etc.


----------



## Hudson11

the bells toll for 270 Park. Photos by *JC_Heights* on the YIMBY Forum show a hoist is being constructed to facilitate the relocation of assets within the current headquarter building.


----------



## germantower

I dont know about you guys, but i have a strong feeling we might witness the preperations for NYCs first 500m+ roof height tower right here.


----------



## Mercenary

With area around Grand Central being re-zoned to 2,000 feet buildings, we will see plenty more buildings that were built in the 1960's International style being torn down to build new taller buildings with larger ceilings.

Once Penn Station is revitalized, the area around Penn Station will also be re-zoned for 2000 feet buildings.


----------



## Hudson11

The rezoning has little to do with height so much as it does replacing aging stocks of office space. Most redevelopments will likely be re-stacks like 425 Park. 2000 feet is a bit unrealistic, but multiple 250m+ towers will come. The rezoning proposed during Bloomberg's administration would have produced more supertalls. The rezoning that finally passed is less ambitious, but will fulfill the original intention to keep Midtown East competitive.


----------



## goodybear

Hudson11 said:


> the bells toll for 270 Park. Photos by *JC_Heights* on the YIMBY Forum show a hoist is being constructed to facilitate the relocation of assets within the current headquarter building.


Goodbye 270 Park Avenue, you will be missed. But a question: what happens to all the building materials once it is demolished? Is the steel recycled and the windows are reused, or is everything going into a landfill?


----------



## Twopsy

goodybear said:


> Goodbye 270 Park Avenue, you will be missed. But a question: what happens to all the building materials once it is demolished? Is the steel recycled and the windows are reused, or is everything going into a landfill?


Of course the steel will be recycled. It must be worth millions of dollars.

I hope the 2000 ft height restriction will be lifted soon. First there is a US president who likes skyscrapers very much and will very likely want to build new ones after he leaves office in 2025 and secondly I think planes should not fly over densely built areas at all. Do you remember the plane that crashed somewhere is Queens in 2001 or so? There were several deaths on the ground, but imagine the number of deaths if it crashed in Midtown Manhattan!


----------



## goodybear

Personally, my beef with One Liberty isn't its design. It's not bad. I'm just mad they had to replace two of the best buildings in the city (the two tall ones in this photo). 








source

Also a bonus shot of 270 Park u/c in 1962. Btw does anyone know why it took so long to construct the building? Wikipedia says 277 Park Avenue took only 2 years to build from 1962-1964 while 270 Park was built from 1950-1964, which seems pretty long. 








source

Also, looks like they really cleared up the Chrysler Building in recent years, all that smog took its toll on the building in that photo.


----------



## germantower

^^ They also did a clearing up at the ESB with removing a whole lot of the broadcasting equipment on the setbacks under eath the observation deck level. The crown or mast was also renovated iirc.


----------



## kingsc

I thought this had something to do with 2Wtc, because you guys don’t know how to
Stay on topic smh


----------



## Hudson11

This summarizes the state of Midtown East pretty well. The main draw to the area is transit. Most of the buildings are anachronistic and need redevelopment. 
Luckily, the Chrysler Building is a landmark and a trophy tower, so that should be enough to attract a buyer. 

*Abu Dhabi government fund, Tishman Speyer put Chrysler Building on the market*



> In the face of higher costs and increased competition, Manhattan’s landmark Chrysler Building is for sale.
> 
> The owners, an Abu Dhabi government fund and developer Tishman Speyer, have hired CBRE to market the tower, the Wall Street Journal reported. The iconic building has been competing with newer office towers that are equipped with modern amenities like outdoor terraces and fitness centers.
> 
> [...]
> 
> “When things break, it takes much longer to fix because there’s only one guy on the planet that has the tools to fix something from the 1920s and 1940s,” said Adelaide Polsinelli, vice chair of the commercial investment sales and leasing division at Compass.


----------



## Hudson11

If Gale Brewer remains steadfast and can get City Planning or the City Council on her side, it could mean we'll get the 1566' variation. She knows Chase will go through with the project with or without a variation, and wants the 10k sf of public space required by the rezoning. That would align with the taller scheme. 

*Manhattan BP shoots down smaller public space at Chase’s new Midtown HQ*



> The firm recently filed a zoning text amendment seeking to change the size of a POPS that will be at the base of the building from 10,000 square feet—a requirement under the East Midtown rezoning plan that was adopted in 2017—to 7,000 square feet. Yesterday, Manhattan borough president *Gale Brewer announced that she would not support the change without modifications to Chase’s new plans—namely, maintaining the mandated 10,000-square-foot size of the public space*, along with the addition of public bathrooms and transit improvements.
> 
> [...]
> 
> *Brewer’s recommendation is advisory in nature*
> 
> [...]


----------



## germantower

^^ This is the first time i like the opposition by her and the commities. If we can get the 1566 feet version that might mean that we end up with NYCs first solid 500m tower here. I am sure there will be some additional height in form of a parapet or so. We might even end up with something as bold as Guangzhous CFT tower here.


----------



## goodybear

More public space and a taller tower! What's not to love? :cheers: 
Any news when the first renders will be released?


----------



## Hudson11

Midtown East in its architectural heyday


ca. 1931 Midtown Manhattan skyline view! New York. by cobravictor, on Flickr


(ca. 6/19/1943). New York skyscrapers. Park Avenue. by cobravictor, on Flickr


----------



## Manitopiaaa

All of those skyscrapers are still there, no?


----------



## germantower

^^ The skyscrapers yes, the highrises maybe not but most of the mansions are definitly gone, like the one on Park Avenue South.


----------



## pqmoore

*Demolition Permits Filed for JPMorgan Chase at 270 Park Avenue*

*Demolition Permits Filed for JPMorgan Chase at 270 Park Avenue, To Be the World's Tallest Building Intentionally Demo'd*


----------



## Hudson11

from that link. Deutsche Bank suffered damage from 9/11 and Meridan Plaza had a catastrophic fire, so they shouldn't qualify as intentional.











IMG_0885 by rds323, on Flickr









https://6abc.com/archive/7975278/


----------



## nyc15

I hope that something big will rise here ,exceeding the height of one world trade Center a +1776ft building


----------



## germantower

Hopefully Chase and Macklowe over at the Saint Stevens site and possible other acteurs will start an all out war about who builds the tallest office tower ala ESB/Chrysler/40 Wall Street back in the 1930s.


----------



## Hudson11

germantower said:


> Hopefully Chase and Macklowe over at the Saint Stevens site and possible other acteurs will start an all out war about who builds the tallest office tower ala ESB/Chrysler/40 Wall Street back in the 1930s.


The Mackelowe assemblage will be an entirely different tower, if it even happens. From what I understand, they don't possess the necessary pieces yet to develop what they want. It might end up looking something like Extell's One Manhattan Square, but as boutique office space instead.


----------



## ZARDOZ

*Loss of the Union Carbide Building!*

Am truly saddened to see this gorgeous mid-century skyscraper slated for demolition. In its day, before JP Morgan Chase decided to stop cleaning the building's windows, this building was a stunning example of the international style and was not just another glass box. The former Union Carbide building was always a looker, and even though the building today is filthy and on its way to the scrap heap, it still is a terrific building that just screams, "New York." 

See it now, before it is long gone. I would love to see JP Morgan Chase replicate this exact building by putting up a 1400-foot updated version. The new building would retain the original architectural vision and details, but built fully anew to meet the company's current needs.


----------



## LadyAmanita

^If JPMorgan Chase neglected this building for a long period of time, somebody deserves a straight up ass kicking. Shame on them. I agree with you 100% Zardoz.


----------



## Hudson11

photo by ILNY


270 Park Ave by NyConstructionPhoto, on Flickr


----------



## Orbiting

baronson said:


> Oof that Singer Building reminder.


There is a very long thread on ssp about buildings that should not have been demolished.


----------



## Uaarkson

When I worked in sheet metal my company did a lot of floors in this building. Bye-bye!


----------



## Hudson11

FAA appoval for a tower crane to be used for the demolition

https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/searchAction.jsp?action=displayOECase&oeCaseID=407692957&row=50



> Description of Location: 270 Park Avenue, New York, NY
> Description of Proposal: Use of Favco M760D Tower Crane in preparation to dismantle building





> Structure Height (ft): 915


----------



## UrbanImpact

JohnDee said:


> If this is another dull glass box, I'd kill a koala. Tired of NY's dumb boring developers who wouldn't know a good design if it hit them in the ass when places like Dubai, China etc unveil innovative towers nearly every day.


There's a plethora of beautiful buildings going up in NYC. There's never been a super tall boom like the current one. You're welcome to your opinion, but, I'm sorry that you hate everything (Complaints in almost every NYC thread). Perhaps you should assemble a site, design the tower, permit that tower, and construct it to see why things are the way they are? Also you should check out the differences in costs in those countries vs the USA. :tiasd:


----------



## Manitopiaaa

UrbanImpact said:


> There's a plethora of beautiful buildings going up in NYC. There's never been a super tall boom like the current one. You're welcome to your opinion, but, I'm sorry that you hate everything (Complaints in almost every NYC thread). Perhaps you should assemble a site, design the tower, permit that tower, and construct it to see why things are the way they are? Also you should check out the differences in costs in those countries vs the USA. :tiasd:


I almost lost it when he said "Dubai" and "innovative" in the same sentence. The only thing that Dubai is innovative in is flammable architecture.


----------



## droneriot

Yeah always nice when people get offended by criticism so they need to trashtalk other cities. I disagree with JohnDee too but there's no reason to get that immature about it. All cities worldwide currently booming deliver some great towers, there's the occasional weaker design here and there but overall we get tons of great skyscrapers across the planet. So no need for city vs city trashtalk, it's not just that it's against the rules anyway, there isn't even any need for it.


----------



## JohnDee

UrbanImpact said:


> There's a plethora of beautiful buildings going up in NYC. There's never been a super tall boom like the current one. You're welcome to your opinion, but, I'm sorry that you hate everything (Complaints in almost every NYC thread). Perhaps you should assemble a site, design the tower, permit that tower, and construct it to see why things are the way they are? Also you should check out the differences in costs in those countries vs the USA. :tiasd:



Sensitive emotional reply, obvious triggered. 

All lies, you don’t know anything about me. I have been following nyc for a long time and have liked many towers. Way longer than this account is old. Your putting words in my mouth. Deal with my complaints or don’t look. Not my problem. If you can only handle positive smaltz and hate people critiquing nyc, you have a choice to ignore me if your that sensitive.


----------



## JohnDee

Manitopiaaa said:


> I almost lost it when he said "Dubai" and "innovative" in the same sentence. The only thing that Dubai is innovative in is flammable architecture.


You have probably never been to Dubai if you talk like this (or Shanghai where the Shanghai Tower reigns supreme). Let's see what you think when you first stand under the Burj, man. You will change your tune, no question about it. Nonsense trash about flammable architecture.


----------



## UrbanImpact

JohnDee said:


> Sensitive emotional reply, obvious triggered.
> 
> All lies, you don’t know anything about me. I have been following nyc for a long time and have liked many towers. Way longer than this account is old. Your putting words in my mouth. Deal with my complaints or don’t look. Not my problem. If you can only handle positive smaltz and hate people critiquing nyc, you have a choice to ignore me if your that sensitive.


I could care less if anyone criticizes any city. All I'm pointing out is that it gets annoying when you open every thread and it's the same complaint over and over again by the same person. Peace.


----------



## Hudson11

JohnDee said:


> Sensitive emotional reply, obvious triggered.


Chill. This is exactly what a troll would say, but I don't think that's your angle. If you can't handle disagreement, then don't plaster your opinions everywhere.


----------



## Iwa_Kiike

JohnDee always start sh*t for no reason. He’s probably a troll or a nolifer.


----------



## BrooklynNYC

Commenting on old news here, but this strikes me as odd. It should be the client who has the power to release or withhold a rendering, not the architect.



> Sep 1
> A reliable source tells me Foster's office is *not* releasing a rendering of 270 Park's replacement until they're certain that "every last scrap" of Natalie de Blois' 1961 façade "is in the dumpster.".


----------



## droneriot

BrooklynNYC said:


> Commenting on old news here, but this strikes me as odd. It should be the client who has the power to release or withhold a rendering, not the architect.


Well yes, unless Foster insisted on adding such a clause to his contract, which is his right to ask for when making the contract.


----------



## Hudson11

With 1 Vanderbilt topped out and the Hudson Yards towers complete, all eyes will be on Midtown East. I hope Jamie Dimon uses the opportunity to reveal Chase's new Midtown East digs.


----------



## LadyAmanita

^Dimon had better cough up something soon, this is nuts.


----------



## Hudson11

https://newyorkyimby.com/2019/09/27...molition-making-progress-in-midtown-east.html


----------



## BLD66

I assume the crane will go to it's max height and then work it's way down? Definitely not used to that theory.


----------



## streetscapeer

https://www.instagram.com/p/B3UrZBonaQw/












https://www.instagram.com/p/B3SaIlrhNN1/


----------



## LadyAmanita

Looks like 299 Park Avenue is getting a little work done 

A friend of mine talked to a worker on site, and he apparently told her they want to have the whole building down by march. That's...optimistic.


----------



## Hudson11

this diagram popped up on a google search, it's from a North America's Building Trades Unions PDF


----------



## LadyAmanita

That is one THICC tower. I just wish we didn't have to lose the existing 270 Park Avenue to get it.


----------



## SydneyCarton

Hudson11 said:


> this diagram popped up on a google search, it's from a North America's Building Trades Unions PDF


----------



## RegentHouse

It's a cool tower and superior to what's there at the moment in all aspects, but somewhat disappointing for the wait. I suppose it could've been far worse.

The diamond braces sort of remind me of 1 Undershaft or what 3 WTC was conceptualized to look like.


----------



## germantower

^^ I am disappointed too. I thought that Chase will surely try to build something that stands out with height, so my hope was for something scratching around 500m roof height. But in the end, its not the last big tower in midtown east that will be developed. As midtown New York leaves the 850 feet plateau behind and slowly develops a new 1200 feet plus plateau, someome should seriously consider a roof height hovering around 550m, followed by someome developing the citys first megatall tower. It would be cool if Barnett could pull some big suprise at his fifth avenue assamblage. Fingers crossed.


----------



## JohnDee

A boring outcome for all the hype. A typical setback box. Nothing that excites me at all.


----------



## joeyoe121

I like it, quite elegant and love the setbacks, shame about the building its replacing though, that was a classic


----------



## SydneyCarton

JohnDee said:


> A boring outcome for all the hype. A typical setback box. Nothing that excites me at all.


:nuts::nuts::nuts::nuts::nuts::nuts:


----------



## Architecture lover

Sometimes I wonder what's the point of showing us renders where the tower appears to have a golden gloss, only for them to show a tower with rather bland black colored frames combined with blue glass afterwards.

Similarly, when they showed Tower Verre initially, the glass looked brown with some decent bronze shine, all the metal beams that created a web around the tower appeared rusty it was like we were witnessing this absolutely Iconic, never-before seen design. The outcome was, well, yawn.


What this render over here shows is not a bad tower for sure, but it's not exactly groundbreaking, breathtaking either, they were building a lot of hype (as per usually) only to show us something that's just yet another filler.

To be frank people can rant about Daniel Libeskind as much as they want, but he gave New York, the only memorable, instantly likable, playful yet still gracious tower, and that's the 1WTC.

Everything else has been just, whatever. 



prageethSL said:


> Credit: siniaevart


----------



## Architecture lover

And it's not just the coloring of the glass, it's the uninspiring overall proportion.
Like I've said 1WTC literally has triangles up and down, and somehow they capture the attention with one of them being usually blue, and the other side reflecting silverish sunshine - the only great tower that means business built in New York in the last decade. 

H - Yards ended up as a major disappointment as well.


----------



## Mercenary

This is just an initial render. I am sure it will get fine tuned.


----------



## germantower

Architecture lover said:


> And it's not just the coloring of the glass, it's the uninspiring overall proportion.
> Like I've said 1WTC literally has triangles up and down, and somehow they capture the attention with one of them being usually blue, and the other side reflecting silverish sunshine - the only great tower that means business built in New York in the last decade.
> 
> H - Yards ended up as a major disappointment as well.


Daniel Libeskind didnt design the built 1 WTC , he only won the masterplan competition for the WTC site which gave guidelines how the site should be developed. The actual architect that designed the built WTC 1 building was SOMs David Childs.


----------



## Architecture lover

Wow, I actually didn't know that! Not surprised, SOM Architects have always delivered some of the best architecture globally.


----------



## chjbolton

What's the timeline for this one? 2023 opening?


----------



## Vito Corleone

chjbolton said:


> What's the timeline for this one? 2023 opening?


More like 2024 or 2025 if all goes as planned.


----------



## UrbanImpact

These aren't official renders, they are made by skyscraper enthusiasts so I wouldn't get worked up on the finishes.


----------



## Jay

UrbanImpact said:


> These aren't official renders, they are made by skyscraper enthusiasts so I wouldn't get worked up on the finishes.


The physical model we saw on the previous page definitely looks official, as for the computer generated renderings, a lot of those were probably made by speculative enthusiasts.


I'm referring to this


----------



## Rauth98

Looks very John Hancock


----------



## Hudson11

those models are legit. Them computer renderings are not. The renderings depict the model on the skyline, so they might as well be the real deal.


----------



## TheIllinoisan

Thats a pretty nice design and Id be happy if thats whats built, so long as the materials are quality. Id change the diamonds to stacked vertical chevrons but thats subjective.

Im worried about them value engineering the facade, but seeing as weve only viewed one model there cant be too much worry in that regard. Yet.


----------



## ophizer

TheIllinoisan said:


> Thats a pretty nice design and Id be happy if thats whats built, so long as the materials are quality. Id change the diamonds to stacked vertical chevrons but thats subjective.
> 
> Im worried about them value engineering the facade, but seeing as weve only viewed one model there cant be too much worry in that regard. Yet.


big old evil bank? come on...they are replacing a perfectly good building with a brand new one...there's no value engineering when power and image is involved


----------



## TheIllinoisan

ophizer said:


> big old evil bank? come on...they are not replacing a perfectly good building with a brand new one...there's no value engineering when power and image is involved


on the contrary. im hoping the fact that theyre one of the biggest, evilest banks in the world will provide the ego boost to make this trully beautiful. if it werent for ego then most of the great skyscrapers of the world wouldnt exist today. Chrysler, Woolworth, Sears, Aon, 40 Wall, so many of those beautiful pre-deco towers in LM. Maybe ESB and original WTC. Off the top of my head.

Not to mention almost every 300m+ building in China. And, of course, the Burj Dubai.

And I cant help but add my opinion to this comment. I think this current iteration is more aesthetic than anything yet built in the Hudson Yards or WTC. The setbacks are a great reference to art deco, while the facade and the slight assymetry of the setbacks firmly root the tower in the modern day. The only thing id change (other than make it a bit taller) is add a spire to the top. Not a twig, but something slender yet substantial like the spire on the ESB.


----------



## seb.nl

I'm not a big fan of the church, but they managed to build some fantastic cathedrals over time.

Today money is our religion. I'm okay accepting these structures for the marvels that they are.


----------



## Hudson11

new rendering from atchain. Noticeable differences from the leaked model.


----------



## Manitopiaaa

Is this more likely to be a previous design or the actual one?

I think it's gorgeous.


----------



## Torch

The rendering is from this website: https://www.atchain.com/still/
The firm list Foster + Partners as clients.

Interesting to know if the rendering, or the models will be closer to the actual building.

This design is obviously simpler in design:
- no V-bracing.
- the top is moved closer to sixth avenue, following the off-center core of the building. 
- the Park Avenue facade rises exponentially.
- there is a hint that the base might got rid of it's fanning columns.

This seems to be a more economical, less flamboyant version of the tower. Through the shift of the tower, following the central core, the client will still have large uninterrupted trading floors at the lower levels, but more conventional upper floors. Those upper floors may be better dividable and so better lease-able than those in the other version.

Still a classic, beautiful tower with an impressive height and mass. I will miss the bracing and fanning columns though. But who knows, what we'll get in the end.


----------



## Manitopiaaa

Torch said:


> The rendering is from this website: https://www.atchain.com/still/
> The firm list Foster + Partners as clients.
> 
> Interesting to know if the rendering, or the models will be closer to the actual building.
> 
> This design is obviously simpler in design:
> - no V-bracing.
> - the top is moved closer to sixth avenue, following the off-center core of the building.
> - the Park Avenue facade rises exponentially.
> - there is a hint that the base might got rid of it's fanning columns.
> 
> This seems to be a more economical, less flamboyant version of the tower. Through the shift of the tower, following the central core, the client will still have large uninterrupted trading floors at the lower levels, but more conventional upper floors. Those upper floors may be better dividable and so better lease-able than those in the other version.
> 
> Still a classic, beautiful tower with an impressive height and mass. I will miss the bracing and fanning columns though. But who knows, what we'll get in the end.


Well, their site has a lot of other designs I haven't seen, and surely they don't have a hand in all of the below. So I'm skeptical.

Maybe a design put into contention that lost out?


----------



## Hudson11

the first two are visions for a PABT redevelopment and the last one is a vision for the Park Central Hotel.

Here we have something that bares a very close resemblance to what we've already seen. It's either a new iteration or an older one.


----------



## xing lin

---


----------



## urbanflight

Hudson11 said:


> new rendering from atchain. Noticeable differences from the leaked model.


I prefer this design 1.000% more than the previous one.

It's way nicer.


----------



## LadyAmanita

^Me too, I actually like this one better.


----------



## Hudson11

it is very similar in form to Foster's other recent works in NYC.

http://fieldcondition.com/blog/2019/11/15/tour-100-e-53










https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-tour...nthouse-at-50-united-nations-plaza-1437672029


----------



## JohnNguyen

It is really great that you can sit on the top floor of this building to drink coffee. I really like buildings like this!


----------



## MarshallKnight

urbanflight said:


> I prefer this design 1.000% more than the previous one.
> 
> 
> 
> It's way nicer.



Agreed. This rendering disposes of the two elements I most disliked about the model we’ve already seen: the gigantic V-braces and bronze coloring. I also like the asymmetry, with the peak shifted closer to Madison; it opens up the view corridor looking up and down Park Ave.

My gut tells me the version from the model is closer to what we’ll see, but my fingers are crossed that this rendering is actually the real deal.


----------



## xing lin

Just from a 3D modelling standpoint, I note that this ATChain design would have been much simpler to produce as a model-- it's a simple vertical extrusion of a rectangular footprint, divided into several setbacks. The facade textures repeat per floor, and there is nothing fancy where it meets the street. Everything about this screams 'massing concept model' to me,but I could be wrong.


----------



## SydneyCarton

Torch said:


> The rendering is from this website: https://www.atchain.com/still/
> The firm list Foster + Partners as clients.
> 
> Interesting to know if the rendering, or the models will be closer to the actual building.
> 
> This design is obviously simpler in design:
> - no V-bracing.
> - the top is moved closer to sixth avenue, following the off-center core of the building.
> - the Park Avenue facade rises exponentially.
> - there is a hint that the base might got rid of it's fanning columns.
> 
> This seems to be a more economical, less flamboyant version of the tower. Through the shift of the tower, following the central core, the client will still have large uninterrupted trading floors at the lower levels, but more conventional upper floors. Those upper floors may be better dividable and so better lease-able than those in the other version.
> 
> Still a classic, beautiful tower with an impressive height and mass. I will miss the bracing and fanning columns though. But who knows, what we'll get in the end.


That's an old rendering. The model that Yimby disclosed is the latest version. It matches the leaked JPMC documents, and it matches the limited images to the base that JPMC presented to the City last spring. 

Further, this website is filled with obsolete renderings like the old version of the Chicago Tribune Tower which resembles 432 Park and with proposals for the NY-NJ PA that will not be built.

I look forward to 1,425' of this.


----------



## Torch

SydneyCarton said:


> That's an old rendering. The model that Yimby disclosed is the latest version. It matches the leaked JPMC documents, and it matches the limited images to the base that JPMC presented to the City last spring.
> 
> Further, this website is filled with obsolete renderings like the old version of the Chicago Tribune Tower which resembles 432 Park and with proposals for the NY-NJ PA that will not be built.
> 
> I look forward to 1,425' of this.


Yeah thinking about again, you probably right. 
A rendering designing firm wouldn't leak/ silently release a current design of their client through their own website.


----------



## KillerZavatar

Hudson11 said:


> new rendering from atchain. Noticeable differences from the leaked model.


This is really pretty! Hope this one wins.


----------



## SydneyCarton

It’s an old rendering and is obsolete, like everything else on that site.


----------



## Hudson11

@champagnetasteonametrocard on instagram


----------



## BrooklynNYC

Ha. Somebody needs to get on the phone with Atchain and tell them to stop leaking. This isn't the first time.

If I was at Foster's office I'd be pretty annoyed.

Maggie Qin is their point of contact for the North American market, maybe should drop her a line.


----------



## DiogoBaptista

> SOURCE: https://forum.newyorkyimby.com/t/new-york-270-park-ave-1-425-ft-70-floors/4189/864​


​


----------



## goodybear

What actually happens to all the building materials of the old building? Iirc, it had LEED certification so I'm assuming the building materials like glass and steel will be in good shape to be recycled or even reused?


----------



## Architecture lover

Hudson11 said:


> I'd much rather work all day in one of those two metal and glass dorks. The Waldorf Astoria would seem like a cave by comparison. Masonry skyscrapers may look beautiful on the outside, but there's a reason so many new towers have plain glass curtainwalls today. The international style regressed to be much less glassy later in the decade. IE the Twins and towers facing the water downtown. It took decades to reverse that trend.


Could've never said it better myself. I wouldn't like to see a building that should've been landmarked long ago, in rumble, in order to make space for another faux Art Deco.

Art Deco was wonderful. In the 30's.

And right now we have so many amazing construction techniques that just wait to be challenged. Not to mention the ST again, but her glass facade is literally suspended and supported by cables.

Not a bad idea to revive historic styles every once in a while, but not at the expense of the contemporary.


----------



## xing lin

C'mon, this tower is a gentle nod to '30s art deco at best. Judging by the known renders and depending on the final details and the materials, this tower could look anywhere from a stylish '80s postmodernism homage to a firmly 21st century glass monolith.


----------



## Architecture lover

Even if that's the case, the setbacks are so unimaginative.
I think even if many may not like to admit, they realize the architecture of New York has been rather plain in the last 2 decades.

Some exceptions are worth mentioning, for instance I really like 1WTC, and Calatrava's Oculus. Those two win the best architecture of the 10's in New York for me.


----------



## RegentHouse

Twopsy said:


> If they deconstruct it piece by piece, I wonder, if they could ship all the pieces somewhere else and rebuilt it.


Another glass box could be built elsewhere anew and the developer could claim this silly idea, and people would believe it because how much it would look alike.


----------



## WibblyWobbly

At least make the roof of each step slightly peaked, the flatness on this thing is just kinda sad. No one's ever gonna look up at this tower and remark at its beauty if it's this flat and lacking in detail


----------



## Mcully56964

I actually really love this tower's proportions and setbacks,. It's a breath of fresh air from the thin, yet still beautiful towers going up. I just really hope it gets that golden accent facade and looks decent when completed. But I'll be happy if it ends up anywhere as good as that scale model of this building shows. This is definitely my third most favorite project after 111 and 9 DeKalb.


----------



## streetscapeer

Unofficial fan art rendering









@siniaevart


----------



## k%

Why even anybody in NEW YORK CITY should care enough to even look what some cities in China are doing? :lol:

Great role models you got there my friend


----------



## Manitopiaaa

streetscapeer said:


> Unofficial fan art rendering
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> @siniaevart


Absolutely incredible, though someone should add 350 Park Avenue.


----------



## JohnDee

k% said:


> Why even anybody in NEW YORK CITY should care enough to even look what some cities in China are doing? :lol:
> 
> Great role models you got there my friend


?

Explain please.

There are plenty of nice towers in China that would look great in NY, don't deny it :nuts:


----------



## Architecture lover

k% said:


> Why even anybody in NEW YORK CITY should care enough to even look what some cities in China are doing? :lol:
> 
> Great role models you got there my friend


Sure we can't blame you for the security of ignorance.
Plus not enough IQ in your head to realize that by degrading their towers you degrade US architecture firms? 
The same ones that built stuff all across the US. Shaking my head.


----------



## NateArchibald

Architecture lover said:


> Sure we can't blame you for the security of ignorance.
> Plus not enough IQ in your head to realize that by degrading their towers you degrade US architecture firms?
> The same ones that built stuff all across the US. Shaking my head.


I couldn't have put it better myself.


----------



## BrooklynNYC

Architecture lover said:


> Sure we can't blame you for the security of ignorance.
> Plus not enough IQ in your head to realize that by degrading their towers you degrade US architecture firms?
> The same ones that built stuff all across the US. Shaking my head.


Actually, for the sake of your argument with JohnDee, the same firms have designed most of the towers in china.....


----------



## Architecture lover

I never question the abilities of US architecture firms. Mad respect for them.
If there's one thing that I have criticized, it was developers.

Also don't delude yourself with delusions of unmatched grandeur. ( like *k%* did)
I criticize a lot, but sometimes those who criticize are the ones that love the most.


----------



## Hudson11




----------



## Hudson11

@ksmontoya on instagram


----------



## Hudson11

deconstruction has now begun in earnest.









Covid-19 Could Have Lasting Impacts on City Planning


The pandemic underscores the innate risk in relying on specific asset classes and tenant types to transform neighborhoods.




therealdeal.com







> The bank received approval in late May to demolish down to the 41st floor of the building, according to the DOB.


----------



## binhai

Good, tired of that generic modernist crap.


----------



## xing lin

I wonder what's the reasoning behind approving demolition in stages? Surely by the time you've knocked ten stories off the building, it's basically unusable as a whole, in terms of its location in this dense part of Manhattan!


----------



## spectre000

xing lin said:


> I wonder what's the reasoning behind approving demolition in stages? Surely by the time you've knocked ten stories off the building, it's basically unusable as a whole, in terms of its location in this dense part of Manhattan!


Probably to pause for safety checks and any structural issues. I believe this is the largest skyscraper to be purposely demolished ever. Likely just being extra careful.


----------



## Hudson11

^ Yeah that's my assumption as well. CYA. Document everything.


----------



## Hudson11

Today is the day by Roman Kruglov, on Flickr









@irishpilotnyc on instagram


----------



## streetscapeer




----------



## streetscapeer

Slowly but surely coming down

Source


----------



## KillerZavatar

This thread is a bit confusing, can someone who followed it more thoroughly help me answer these few questions:

1. Do we have a final design yet?
2. Is the height final?
3. Is the building approved and when would it start after demolition completes?


----------



## streetscapeer

KillerZavatar said:


> This thread is a bit confusing, can someone who followed it more thoroughly help me answer these few questions:
> 
> 1. Do we have a final design yet? No
> 2. Is the height final? No, but most likely won't change by much
> 3. Is the building approved and when would it start after demolition completes? No I believe, but they're pretty much guaranteed to be approved. Will Start early to mid-next year.


----------



## KillerZavatar

Thanks, looks like it's just a bit more waiting then. Yes, when they get approved to demolish such a big building I would expect them to have securities that they will get everything approved, As it was a large investment already.


----------



## streetscapeer

*Photos posted by NYGuy at SSP*


1.










2.










3.










4.










5.










6.










7.










8.










9.










10.










11.[/b]










1.










2.










3.










4.










5.










6.










7.










8.










9.










10.












More from above...


11.










12.










13.










14.










15.











Load ready to go down...



16.










17.










18.










19.










20.










21.










22.










23.










24.










25.










26.


----------



## binhai

Awesome! Glad they’re getting rid of this trash in a hurry.


----------



## trustevil

So they're dismantling the old met Life building? Sorry haven't paid much attention to this thread.


----------



## KillerZavatar

this is the building they are demolishing:






JPMorgan Chase Tower - The Skyscraper Center







www.skyscrapercenter.com


----------



## streetscapeer

*@irishpilotnyc









@ollypetrovic










@vinnie_perno*


----------



## trustevil

KillerZavatar said:


> this is the building they are demolishing:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JPMorgan Chase Tower - The Skyscraper Center
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.skyscrapercenter.com


That's an older one as well. I saw that last time I was in new York


----------



## Hudson11

the Madison Avenue Podium is nearly gone.









*bpc* on the YIMBY forums


----------



## Lincolnlover2005

I bet Gordon Bunshaft, the architect who designed this building, who spent a part of his life designing this building, planning out each and every nook and cranny, probably looks like this right now:


----------



## urbanflight

trustevil said:


> So they're dismantling the old met Life building? Sorry haven't paid much attention to this thread.


I wish!


----------



## Leshommes

Will a tower this large even still be needed?


----------



## Twopsy

Leshommes said:


> Will a tower this large even still be needed?


I think they should build it even twice as large now, because that would make social distancing between the employees much easier.


----------



## Braudian88

Twopsy said:


> I think they should build it even twice as large now, because that would make social distancing between the employees much easier.


Only increase the floors to 85 of the ridiculous amount of floors that is 57 for a 430m tower when the building they demolished had 215m and 55 floors, I understand that now you need a higher clearance height of mezzanine for any issues, comfort, certification leed, air circulation and natural lighting, than when it was built in the 60s, but only 2 more floors for 200m higher sounds absurd in a city where the square meter comes out at stratospheric prices.


----------



## chjbolton

@DalianG.M. said:


> Only increase the floors to 85 of the ridiculous amount of floors that is 57 for a 430m tower when the building they demolished had 215m and 55 floors, I understand that now you need a higher clearance height of mezzanine for any issues, comfort, certification leed, air circulation and natural lighting, than when it was built in the 60s, but only 2 more floors for 200m higher sounds absurd in a city where the square meter comes out at stratospheric prices.


This might be the point...? Maybe this is a way to spend 'F you money'


----------



## Hudson11

Leshommes said:


> Will a tower this large even still be needed?


this is the world headquarters for the world's largest financial corporation. So, yes.


----------



## Hudson11

photos by *NYguy* on SSP


----------



## uakoops

That last picture reminds me of 9/11


----------



## Hudson11

a little bit, they're buildings from the same era after all.


----------



## Lincolnlover2005

Wait what does classical music have to do with this?


----------



## baronson

From 8.22.20:


----------



## rgarrison

From my 3d model of New York City:


----------



## Lincolnlover2005

rgarrison said:


> From my 3d model of New York City:


WOW THOSE MODELS ARE AMAZING! DID YOU MAKE THEM!?


----------



## rgarrison

Hey Brady C. Yes I did. I actually referenced your sketchup models of Tower Fifth and One Vandy to get dimensions from.


----------



## baronson

Those renders are so great. Thanks for sharing your talent!


----------



## Lincolnlover2005

rgarrison said:


> Hey Brady C. Yes I did. I actually referenced your sketchup models of Tower Fifth and One Vandy to get dimensions from.


Wow i am so impressed keep up the good work man!


----------



## Hudson11

WSJ News Exclusive | JPMorgan Top Brass Tell Trading-Floor Staff to Come Back to the Office


The bank’s giant sales and trading operation is told that their teams must return to the office by Sept. 21. Employees with child-care issues and medical conditions that make them more vulnerable to coronavirus complications can continue working from home.




www.wsj.com


----------



## binhai

Yeah, the people thinking we were going to work remotely forever were kinda delusional. Remote work SUCKS long-term.


----------



## KillerZavatar

Lincolnlover2005 said:


> Wow i am so impressed keep up the good work man!


Saw you started being busy on adding diagrams for SSP! Thanks for the great additions, finally there is a diagram for this building as well now.


----------



## Hudson11

the old tower is really starting to look stubby.










last year, it still rivaled 383 Madison


Untitled by Alan Parkinson, on Flickr


----------



## JohnDee

Nice tower, it's classy you have to give it that...You have ot say its far better than that trash they are building over at the HY, the dull ass boxes going up that are just factories in the sky with glassy windows... now that's dull.

However, it could have been far more daring. It's still a classic looking design, instead of going bold and futuristic with sensational curves or angles like Chinese banks have done, it retains a modest art-deco setback style -- yawn!

Shame on JP BOREGAN. What a boring company, what a boring style.


----------



## xing lin

There's probably a reason the stepped box skyscraper has lasted over a century while curvy Asian towers have already started to tail off. Most major skyscraper designs in East Asia today have evolved towards a single Cesar Pelli-esque tapered design, a compromise between exterior curves and square, regular floorplates.

I think New York skyscrapers are only ever as daring as the economics of the time demand them to be. Not to mention the constraints of the Manhattan grid compared to the superblocks Asian towers are often built on.


----------



## UrbanImpact

JohnDee said:


> Nice tower, it's classy you have to give it that...You have ot say its far better than that trash they are building over at the HY, the dull ass boxes going up that are just factories in the sky with glassy windows... now that's dull.
> 
> However, it could have been far more daring. It's still a classic looking design, instead of going bold and futuristic with sensational curves or angles like Chinese banks have done, it retains a modest art-deco setback style -- yawn!
> 
> Shame on JP BOREGAN. What a boring company, what a boring style.


Shame on JP Morgan for being the biggest bank in the US and yet being a "boring company". The SkyscrapercityTrumpet strikes again.


----------



## A Chicagoan

UrbanImpact said:


> Shame on JP Morgan for being the biggest bank in the US and yet being a "boring company". The SkyscrapercityTrumpet strikes again.


Yes indeed, I have a good mind to cut up all of my Chase cards and switch to John Deere Capital Corp for all of my farm machinery financing needs...


----------



## streetscapeer

*@newyork_city_us*


----------



## xing lin

SkyscraperPage Forum - View Single Post - NEW YORK | 270 Park Ave | 1,388 FT | 58 FLOORS


SkyscraperPage.com's discussion forum is one of the world's most active community discussion portals for skyscraper, urbanism and building enthusiasts. Featuring coverage of the world's projects, there are topics that will appeal to the skyscraper enthusiast in everyone.



skyscraperpage.com




Latest diagrams posted by NYGuy on SSP. Small but impactful design changes, and a height of 1388ft.


----------



## Mcully56964

I love this revision! I just wish it didn't lose its height.


----------



## Hudson11

the base of this tower will be something special. 1388' is also still impressive considering this tower is being built for a single company. We'll wait to see if it's 1388' to the pinnacle or if that's the highest occupied space.


----------



## Twopsy

So the design will finally be symmetric? Looks better now, but the problem is that there are less floors with a balcony now. Instead some floors have two balconies each now.


----------



## KillerZavatar

i prefer the symmetry as well


----------



## Jay

Mcully56964 said:


> I love this revision! I just wish it didn't lose its height.


It was originally proposed at 1200 or something feet, the highest it ever was was 1425. 1388 is still pretty good, and while it's likely the structural top it could also refer to a slab or occupied space as Hudson mentioned. We're not sure yet.


----------



## WillBuild

I would be shocked if Jamie Dimon allows his new headquarters to be shorter than TD Bank's neighboring One Vanderbilt.

In Chase's own backyard no less.

CEOs, big egos and phallic symbols. Has always worked wonders for the New York skyline.


----------



## JohnDee

I don't think Dimond gives a darn.. the only thing he cares about is his wallet.


----------



## Hudson11

The difference here is that TD Bank is merely a tenant at 1 Vanderbilt while JP Morgan Chase will own this new building. SL Green is the landlord at 1 Vandy. This tower will also have frontage on Park Avenue which is a bragging point.


----------



## kanye

reviewed by CTBUH


Height: Architectural 423 m / 1,388 ft 






JPMorgan Chase World Headquarters - The Skyscraper Center







www.skyscrapercenter.com


----------



## chjbolton

The height of these floors though 
Symbol of ultimate luxury these days it seems...


----------



## JohnDee

I read once from an architect working in NY that the zoning laws really shape the design, that's a shame... i think it was HdM.... I think they should loosen the laws a bit, allows more creativity in design for today's technology.


----------



## Lincolnlover2005

Wow 270 PA can't get a break



Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat – CTBUH


----------



## Hudson11

throwback


Midtown Manhattan Skyline - New York [1960s] by cobra victor, on Flickr


----------



## Jay

^^^ Someone should have made a ~50 year time-lapse of this coming up and going down



Lincolnlover2005 said:


> Wow 270 PA can't get a break


Well at least it's already on its way down


----------



## Hudson11

new documents, h/t NYguy on SSP. It sounds like this will make its way over to the U/C section soon. Foundation work has been occurring underneath ground level in the Grand Central tunnels. But we won't be able to see the new construction until it reaches above street level. About January/Feb


----------



## MarshallKnight

Hudson11 said:


>


That taper is unexpected, and I think it really elevates the design. Still not in love with the North/South elevation (it reminds me of a child's drawing of a rocket ship) but the East/West elevation is very nice.


----------



## streetscapeer

From the same source:


----------



## Hudson11

probably approaching midrise territory. Demo on the tower should wrap up in February.


----------



## Lincolnlover2005

streetscapeer said:


> From the same source:
> 
> 
> View attachment 720356


That Green building by the Rockefeller Center, is that Tower Fifth? Did it get a redesign?


----------



## jjim

Lincolnlover2005 said:


> That Green building by the Rockefeller Center, is that Tower Fifth? Did it get a redesign?


I'm pretty sure, yes, it is Tower Fifth, but just a rough approximation of the designs/renders we've all already seen w/out updates.


----------



## JohnDee

MarshallKnight said:


> That taper is unexpected, and I think it really elevates the design. Still not in love with the North/South elevation (it reminds me of a child's drawing of a rocket ship) but the East/West elevation is very nice.


it looks like a rocket, yes.a child could easily do this, it's a simple basic stair-stepped tower that any kid would do.
Nobody could say this was an innovative looking shape that's for sure ;p


----------



## UrbanImpact

JohnDee said:


> it looks like a rocket, yes.a child could easily do this, it's a simple basic stair-stepped tower that any kid would do.
> Nobody could say this was an innovative looking shape that's for sure ;p


Yes, a child could totally meet and compromise a design with the developers/owners, apply zoning, life safety, and building codes, plan out the structural integrity of a huge tower that sits above an active railyard on what used to be a foundation of an existing structure, compose all the necessary architectural sheets that would be needed with a building this size, coordinate with Civil, Structural, and MEP Engineers and so on........... Have respect for the construction/design process.


----------



## KillerZavatar

JohnDee said:


> it looks like a rocket, yes.a child could easily do this, it's a simple basic stair-stepped tower that any kid would do.
> Nobody could say this was an innovative looking shape that's for sure ;p


come on, this is not a glass box with no features, it has quite an intricate design with a nice base and great flow.


----------



## Architecture lover

Only 63 floors and yet 423 meters of height? Amazing.
I'm fond of the design, looks very North American. I'm sure they'll use quality materials. Cheers!


----------



## Hudson11

foundation work in the rat kingdom; underground Manhattan









@cfssteel on instagram


----------



## rgarrison

From my 3D model of New York.


----------



## uakoops

I liked it better with the asymmetrical setbacks.


----------



## MarshallKnight

uakoops said:


> I liked it better with the asymmetrical setbacks.


Same. That silhouette was more soaring, whereas this one strikes me as mountainous.


----------



## Io-Diegetic

I love this buildings design! If only it were taller than one Vanderbilt.


----------



## Hudson11

270 Park has disappeared from the skyline, now safely in midrise territory. Demolition is supposed to complete next month, about which time we'll see columns above ground where the podium was.


----------



## Hudson11

possible first visible progress on vertical construction. The shrouded midrise with the American flag is all that's left of the old 270 Park.

photos by JC_Heights on the YIMBY forums


----------



## Lincolnlover2005

AWWWWWW HECCCCCCKKKKKK YYYYYEEEEAAAAAHHHHHH


----------



## Hudson11

more from *JC_Heights*





























meanwhile, underground...


__
http://instagr.am/p/CKRV2VNgrqp/


----------



## perheps

It’s real? Everywhere said Proposed ... this construction is real?


----------



## jjim

perheps said:


> It’s real? Everywhere said Proposed ... this construction is real?


FYI: in the previous post, you're seeing the advanced stage of the demolition of the previous building on the site of which this new building is meant to be built on.


----------



## perheps

If real construction then why they’re didn’t start construction because proposed by everywhere?
It’s picture seem yes construction if they approved for construction... what the earth they rush or something?


----------



## xing lin

The columns in those photos are internal parts of the future tower's lobby- the old tower is still being demolished but the half of the site where the lowrise annex was has been flattened for a while.
Relevant diagrams from NYGuy on SkyscraperPage:






















SkyscraperPage Forum - View Single Post - NEW YORK | 270 Park Ave | 1,388 FT | 58 FLOORS


SkyscraperPage.com's discussion forum is one of the world's most active community discussion portals for skyscraper, urbanism and building enthusiasts. Featuring coverage of the world's projects, there are topics that will appeal to the skyscraper enthusiast in everyone.



skyscraperpage.com


----------



## A Chicagoan

It's U/C?!


----------



## Jay

A Chicagoan said:


> It's U/C?!



Yea, didn't expect that quite yet. I guess it has to do with being offset from the original tower, meaning they could start on that part earlier.

NY will have 400 meter buildings U/C for a while it seems, crazy.


----------



## JohnDee

trustevil said:


> Very uninspired design. Did they deliberately go for the old design model cuz it fits in New Yorks old skyscrapers? It'd be nice to see more curvy designs instead of ugly generic boxes on top of a bigger box


NY obviously has an affinity for "art-deco" styled structures. When is the last time you saw a Chinese curvy or Swiss RE style building go up in NY? Once in a blue moon? That should tell you that you won't be seeing much of that style. Unfortunately, they are misguided and don't build progressive architecture, but that's their loss.


----------



## Twopsy

In the US everybody wants a corner office. That is very different in China. A circular tower does not have any corner offices.


----------



## SMCYB

Also, real estate is at such a premium in New York that there's no room for a round building. That would waste valuable property.


----------



## Ecopolisia

trustevil said:


> It's still ugly lol but good for new York adding another supertall and more jobs


Hmm, it's decent looking(but, I sure the facade quality would be astonishing as always with building in all heights in NYC or the US for that matter) , not downright ugly, a wrong and exaggerated choice of word again. When critizing things here, then please doing it with a thorough and analytically empirical WIDER thought first,like look at building styles as brutalism (ESPECIALLY), International Style (for the most parts) or non-gothic Medival age(like the castles) or the 1940's-1950's Googie styles(in term of designs and in fact also facade look, only ) , THEN you would see a true ugliness or kitschy-ness.... 
But, otherwise I'd agree with the rest, the city does, indeed. 
And, that's what this still capital of the world needs more than since the Depression crisis in 1929, yeah, sure. Noice 😅😉👌


----------



## ssoott

I won't call it 'ugly'. I hate that word. But still, it's a very CHUNKY building.


----------



## xing lin

It's undoubtedly chunky but in my opinion it absolutely owns its chunkiness. The lobby design and its overall proportions make its huge size a feature and not a bug.


----------



## Lincolnlover2005

ssoott said:


> I won't call it 'ugly'. I hate that word. But still, it's a very CHUNKY building.


It's T H I C C because it's the world headquarters for one of the largest banks on earth! 270 PA was demolished for that exact reason, lack of space. Personally I like how T H I C C this building is. It adds a sense of scale and sheer size!


----------



## Ecopolisia

Lincolnlover2005 said:


> It's T H I C C because it's the world headquarters for one of the largest banks on earth! 270 PA was demolished for that exact reason, lack of space. Personally I like how T H I C C this building is. It adds a sense of scale and sheer size!


Totally agree with that. Got its many advantages as well, that's for sure 😉👍✌👌


----------



## Hudson11

Lincolnlover2005 said:


> It's T H I C C because it's the world headquarters for one of the largest banks on earth! 270 PA was demolished for that exact reason, lack of space. Personally I like how T H I C C this building is. It adds a sense of scale and sheer size!


----------



## Hudson11

I think this tower will shine for its Eastern/Western faces. That subtle tapering all the way up the building will look great in the views form the outer boroughs and Jersey.



rgarrison said:


>


----------



## SMCYB

It's hideous.


----------



## Ecopolisia

SMCYB said:


> It's hideous.


Another exaggeration of choice of words to describe this an in fact ok and decent OVERALL supertall (its only real drawback that it has is that it could have been higher, and were to start with, but it got chopped slightly, that's all) , just because you can SUBJECTIVELY, publicly... I'll give you brutalism or non-gothic medival age architecture , instead, then. Well, if I could? .. Lol.. And, then that "hideous" word of yours would be way more valid than ever before, OR you could on the other hand find a way worse word than that, if this one particular is "hideous". Of course if you can in the first place? That might be the mystery waiting to be solved .. That would be all excitement I needed for today btw ,if you did of course? ..

Anywayyyy, people be lacking of basic non-negatively constructively critical and analytical sense of analyzing things in a thorough way, beforehand, before throwing harsh AND "out of track of the actual reality of ours"-exaggerated statements or assertions ...JUST because they can freely or right way on a screen, but OK..I'd "respect" that at the end of the day, if I may say it or rather have to say it.. Lol.. ✌😅


----------



## oscillation

As single tower after 30HY and One Vanderbilt, this is my new favorite skyscraper in NY. Love that steel game.


----------



## WillBuild




----------



## SMCYB

Ecopolisia said:


> Another exaggeration of choice of words to describe this an in fact ok and decent OVERALL supertall (its only real drawback that it has is that it could have been higher, and were to start with, but it got chopped slightly, that's all) , just because you can SUBJECTIVELY, publicly... I'll give you brutalism or non-gothic medival age architecture , instead, then. Well, if I could? .. Lol.. And, then that "hideous" word of yours would be way more valid than ever before, OR you could on the other hand find a way worse word than that, if this one particular is "hideous". Of course if you can in the first place? That might be the mystery waiting to be solved .. That would be all excitement I needed for today btw ,if you did of course? ..
> 
> Anywayyyy, people be lacking of basic non-negatively constructively critical and analytical sense of analyzing things in a thorough way, beforehand, before throwing harsh AND "out of track of the actual reality of ours"-exaggerated statements or assertions ...JUST because they can freely or right way on a screen, but OK..I'd "respect" that at the end of the day, if I may say it or rather have to say it.. Lol.. ✌😅


Let me be clear. I was talking about the proposed one with all the different boxes randomly placed on top. It's hideous.

JPMorgan Chase is OK. The bottom is interesting, the building is OK, and the top is kinda weird. So overall it's OK.


----------



## xing lin

SMCYB said:


> Let me be clear. I was talking about the proposed one with all the different boxes randomly placed on top. It's hideous.
> 
> JPMorgan Chase is OK. The bottom is interesting, the building is OK, and the top is kinda weird. So overall it's OK.


That's Macklowe's Tower Fifth, and I don't think you'll come across much disagreement in calling it hideous!


----------



## czargeof

I didn’t realize people thought it was so ugly, I like it a lot. Only think I’m not a fan of are the diamond shapes, looks like a playing card lol


----------



## Ecopolisia

SMCYB said:


> Let me be clear. I was talking about the proposed one with all the different boxes randomly placed on top. It's hideous.
> 
> JPMorgan Chase is OK. The bottom is interesting, the building is OK, and the top is kinda weird. So overall it's OK.


Oh, ok. Just be more specific next time, then, so I or - and, as long I have been read so far - we can be aware what you referring to, specifically . But,when that's said I wouldn't say it looks downright hideous either as well, but it's sure lesser appealing than this one here overall. Sure. It's just a strong descriptive word to put not a building than look decent and international style LIKE combined with slightly touch of post-modernism, aligned with extravaganza like dancing touch at the the top.. It seems to work for me, like it's JUST about being tolerable, overall, yeah. Hmm?

The facade quality of it might be top-notch, as usual with US or NYC buildings no matter heights, though, yeah.. It's interesting in a weird good kinda way,particularly the top. It's so Pioccaso up there and it's free spaced and so open with luxurious wide bright balconies to look at a utterly great bee of Manhatten and elsewhere surrounds it. It would sure be upgraded version of 432 Park Avenue tower, though. Well, that can be sad. But, good that has been settled down now and clarified out once for all 😅😉👍


----------



## Twopsy

New York Yimby wrote that there still is no official architect. I always thought that Foster&Partners designed this tower. It has many fosterish elements like the triangular shapes.


----------



## A Chicagoan

Since we're sharing... I think this is a pretty nice design. Certainly not the best, and I wouldn't even say it's good-looking, but it's interesting in a way that makes you like it a bit.


----------



## A Chicagoan

Meanwhile, the demolition progress...
IMG_2282 by Brecht Bug, on Flickr


----------



## hkskyline

3/14

IMG_4360 by Vinny Schiano, on Flickr

IMG_4364 by Vinny Schiano, on Flickr

IMG_4347 by Vinny Schiano, on Flickr

IMG_4340-Pano by Vinny Schiano, on Flickr

IMG_4311 by Vinny Schiano, on Flickr

HTP15880 by Vinny Schiano, on Flickr


----------



## uakoops

Holy ___, how much does that thing weigh???


----------



## baronson

From 3.14.21. 

These beams are humongous. This will be a behemoth.


----------



## SMCYB

I'd really like to see some plans because while I'm admittedly not an engineer, I don't see how those columns can hold up that building in their current iteration. I know there's more to come, but it seems like some more vertical columns are necessary.


----------



## Hudson11

SMCYB said:


> I'd really like to see some plans because while I'm admittedly not an engineer, I don't see how those columns can hold up that building in their current iteration. I know there's more to come, but it seems like some more vertical columns are necessary.


This is just the visible part of a more elaborate system of columns that go down to the Grand Central Train shed.


----------



## SMCYB

Thanks! So ALL of the columns at that level are at an angle? None transfer the weight straight down?

Is there a core?


----------



## Hudson11

SMCYB said:


> Thanks! So ALL of the columns at that level are at an angle? None transfer the weight straight down?
> 
> Is there a core?


the straight columns are subgrade. I think this will be an all-steel build like 30 Hudson Yards, 2 Manhattan West and the Spiral. 1 Manhattan West had a concrete core but I think employed a similar technique to achieve its columnless lobby. Then again, engineering isn't my expertise and it might be totally different. 



WillBuild said:


> Making good progress
> 
> 
> by willbuild, on Flickr
> 
> 
> 
> by willbuild, on Flickr


----------



## SMCYB

So 1300+ feet of building will be sitting atop an entire level of non-vertical columns. Wow.


----------



## oud-Rotterdammer

Together with "The One" in Toronto, we have two projects ongoing with very exciting steelwork...


----------



## Hudson11




----------



## germantower

SMCYB said:


> So 1300+ feet of building will be sitting atop an entire level of non-vertical columns. Wow.


You dont need vertical columns to transfer the loads downwards and finally into the foundation.


----------



## SMCYB

As I said, I'm not an engineer. So know that. The thing that gets me is the level above the foundation holding up the weight above it, not the transference of load into the ground. It's more about the strength of the non-vertical columns holding up all of that weight above it.

Although I do see what looks like at least one vertical column in Hudson11's video. So we'll see if there's more to come.


----------



## Kyll.Ing.

SMCYB said:


> As I said, I'm not an engineer. So know that. The thing that gets me is the level above the foundation holding up the weight above it, not the transference of load into the ground. It's more about the strength of the non-vertical columns holding up all of that weight above it.


As long as there's no transfer of rotational moment in the joints, the forces acting on the columns will be longitudinal no matter how they are oriented. There won't be any force (other than the weight of the columns themselves) that try to bend the columns. It will all be transferred as pure tension or compression (in this case, compression). 

Imagine a ring-shaped chandelier hanging from several chains connected to a single point. Even though the weight of the chandelier pulls straight down, and none of the chains hang vertically, they won't bend towards the direction of force. The force is only transferred as tension, so the chains hang straight. But the fastening point and the ring will both be affected horizontally (stretched/compressed, respectively) by the sideways component of the tension in the chains. It will all cancel out, however, as the sum of horizontal forces is still zero. If you push the chandelier sideways, some of the chains may slacken as that sideways force is now transferred to your finger instead, but they won't bend to any other force than their own weight under gravity. 

The principle is the same if you invert it and use rods instead of chains, so they don't buckle under compression. No matter what you do to your now-inverted chandelier, you won't bend the rods except by longitudinal buckling. As long as the link at the end of each rod doesn't transfer rotational moment, the rod will only be compressed, just like it would if it had been oriented vertically. Any sideways forces will manifest as increased/decreased compression in the rods, but no bending.

TL;DR - as long as the joints aren't stiff, non-vertical columns work just as nicely as vertical ones do.


----------



## spectre000

Great explanation, thanks!


----------



## generalscarr

ssoott said:


> I think, they deliberately chose a chunky design as an antithesis towards the pencil tower trend.


Ultra thin towers = super luxury residential, 1-4 apartments per floor
'chunky' design = office buildings with giant floorplates

It's not an aesthetic thing, it's how these two building types work


----------



## generalscarr

SMCYB said:


> As I said, I'm not an engineer. So know that. The thing that gets me is the level above the foundation holding up the weight above it, not the transference of load into the ground. It's more about the strength of the non-vertical columns holding up all of that weight above it.
> 
> Although I do see what looks like at least one vertical column in Hudson11's video. So we'll see if there's more to come.


You see this in bridges all the time. It's essentially a truss system. 'Holding the weight above' is the same thing as transferring the load into the ground. 
The triangular structure changes the distribution of forces from above. The diagonal columns themselves are not necessarily stronger than if they were vertical but there are additional elements to account for the horizontal loads - introduced by changing the flow of forces from vertical to diagonal throughout those transfer columns. You can see them on the photos.


----------



## JohnDee

This tower is just massive... the bulk of it. If it were me, I'd have built taller and sleeker, not wider.. Just too domineering in the neighborhood. For the area's sake, I hope it turns out nice because you're not avoiding this thing. Also the style of architecture is really not for me. I dislike the cantilever thingy, and it's ugly on the street. Quite overbearing.


----------



## oud-Rotterdammer

Kyll.Ing. said:


> ................................. you won't bend the rods except by longitudinal buckling. As long as the link at the end of each rod doesn't transfer rotational moment, the rod will only be compressed, just like it would if it had been oriented vertically. Any sideways forces will manifest as increased/decreased compression in the rods, but no bending.


The rods seem very slender, to support the compression forces of such a high building.
Will there be a floor at half-height of these columns?


----------



## SMCYB

Thanks, Kyll.Ing. and generalscarr.

Well, there has to be an elevator core/shaft with vertical elements in the middle of the building regardless. So I imagine that will also account for some of the load.


----------



## Kyll.Ing.

SMCYB said:


> Well, there has to be an elevator core/shaft with vertical elements in the middle of the building regardless. So I imagine that will also account for some of the load.


Possibly, although not necessarily. The concrete elevator shafts in the old World Trade Center didn't carry much more load than their own weight, if I remember correctly.

I finally found another example of non-vertical columns in action, by the way. Say hello to the 190-meter towers of the 400kV Thames Crossing east of London:









Each of the four legs of the towers looks like this at the bottom: basically an inverted pyramid.









(Pictures from Wikipedia).


----------



## SMCYB

I absolutely believe and trust what you say. It just seems so incredible though because this building will be massive and heavy, with all the floorplates, etc.

Anyway, I'm learnin' stuff. Thanks.


----------



## Lincolnlover2005

Yeah “truss” him


----------



## Hudson11

Lincolnlover2005 said:


> Yeah “truss” him


don't make us ban you


----------



## Lincolnlover2005

Hudson11 said:


> don't make us ban you


----------



## PDH

Hey everyone, just been having a good read here, stunning American construction at its best! LOVE IT..

Quick question, does anyone know the approx cost to demolish the original building?

Must have been millions upon millions......

Love all you work here members!

Peter
Australia


----------



## hkskyline

3/28

HTP17432 by Vinny Schiano, on Flickr

HTP17419 by Vinny Schiano, on Flickr

HTP17448 by Vinny Schiano, on Flickr


----------



## Shenkey

SMCYB said:


> I absolutely believe and trust what you say. It just seems so incredible though because this building will be massive and heavy, with all the floorplates, etc.
> 
> Anyway, I'm learnin' stuff. Thanks.


The only thing you need to keep in mind is.

The horizontal beams are actually keeping it together, and the tower should be able to stand up if they don't put too much weight on one side - kind of like in an airplane where you have to manage the weight distribution.


----------



## SMCYB

It actually looks like there are some vertical columns in the center of the building. So that puts my non-engineer mind at ease.


----------



## Kyll.Ing.

SMCYB said:


> It actually looks like there are some vertical columns in the center of the building. So that puts my non-engineer mind at ease.


Funnily enough, a tower with all vertical columns wouldn't work very well. Try building a house of cards without slanting the cards, for instance. It will tip at the slightest touch. At some point, you need diagonal bracing. That's why trusses are so stable in all directions. The diagonal columns of this tower are just like a giant truss system. Together, they provide stiffness.


----------



## streetscapeer

Source


















arbre_vert on YIMBY


----------



## FelixMadero

Wowwwwww!


----------



## racata

270 Park Avenue's Demolition Wrapping Up as New Superstructure Rises in Midtown East, Manhattan - New York YIMBY


J.P. Morgan Chase's new 1,425-foot-tall headquarters at 270 Park Avenue is quickly rising as demolition of the old skyscraper wraps up in Midtown East.



www.newyorkyimby.com


----------



## ILTarantino

1425' ??


----------



## hmrapp

When do we think vertical construction will take place on eastern part of the plot?


----------



## Hudson11

hmrapp said:


> When do we think vertical construction will take place on eastern part of the plot?


My guesstimate would be 2 months. In the next 2 weeks the old building will be completely gone.


----------



## foxmulder

I walk in front of this everyday. It is like a giant containership under construction  Once completed the lobby will be EPIc.


----------



## trustevil

Is the 423m height finalized or is there a chance for an increase? Asking for a friend.


----------



## A Chicagoan

4/24 by me... it was smaller than I expected

Old building









New building


----------



## JohnDee

Jumbo building. has a nice side facade, but don’t care for the cantilever..

anyway, who in god name likes greedy jp Morgan?


----------



## JohnDee

It's still a monster tower. I'd prefer it if it were smaller and more graceful. A blockbusting behemoth, it just overpowers everything around it. I hate it honestly. I would prefer it if looked something like the new tower in KL, the one with the angular shaft. This is just a box from the past with steps.


----------



## hkskyline

Lots of construction photos : 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1404189156448903179


----------



## iu2blu

The design change of making the setbacks symmetrical ruined this design for me. The asymmetry of the original proposal actually made this a well designed building that was interesting and dynamic. Im surprised to see people on here prefer this design. Also the top massing has a darker cladding than the rest of the building now? This in addition to the new setback massing, disassociates it from the rest of the building. Reminds me of the spire on landmark 81 in Vietnam or the spire on the Comcast Technology Center in Philadelphia. Ill have to wait to see the official renders to be sure if its as bad as I think though.


----------



## Twopsy

Having a symmetrical design means that fewer floors have balconies, while some floors have two balconies. So less people have quick access to fresh air.


----------



## NanoRay

Does this building have any concrete rising in it? I wonder what’s the progress so far and when it will start rising… 🤔


----------



## Fabeiro

Taken just now.

View attachment 1767400
View attachment 1767400


----------



## Ecopolisia

Fabeiro said:


> Taken just now.
> 
> View attachment 1767400
> View attachment 1767400


Can't see anything,whatsoever?..🙄🤷


----------



## Modis

JohnDee said:


> It's still a monster tower. I'd prefer it if it were smaller and more graceful. A blockbusting behemoth, it just overpowers everything around it. I hate it honestly. I would prefer it if looked something like the new tower in KL, the one with the angular shaft. This is just a box from the past with steps.


 NY is in love with the 1950s


----------



## WillBuild

If you're going to complain, at least get the era right.

Art Deco is associated with the 1930s.

I'm getting tired of this incessant complaining about some developments taking a cue from New York's history. The same tired point repeated in every single thread.

There are plenty of buildings that embody some kind of futurism with blue glass and jagged angles. If that is your personal fetish. Like 30 Hudson Yards, 400 Park Ave South, Bank of America Tower. Or for more diverse forward looking: 56 Leonard, 8 Spruce, 53W53, 425 Park, 242 W53 (Roseland), 111 Murray, etcetera, etcetera. We are spoiled across the spectrum of styles.


----------



## MarshallKnight

WillBuild said:


> If you're going to complain, at least get the era right.
> 
> Art Deco is associated with the 1930s.


Modis was pretty clearly referencing the International Style skyscrapers of the 50s and 60s — The UN, Lever House, Seagram, Chase Manhattan Plaza, etc. 270 Park is much closer to the International Style than anything approaching Art Deco.


----------



## Kazmit

I don't mind the design of it, it just looks oversized. It would look so much better if it was 300 feet shorter.


----------



## 57th&1st

Some pix from a couple hours ago:


----------



## aha ein Hochhaus

Really a very nice project, we definitely need one like that in Frankfurt but hope will die last !!


----------



## Zaz965

that building is my favorite octogonal shape building in new york


----------



## UrbanImpact

Zaz965 said:


> that building is my favorite octogonal shape building in new york


 That octagonal building is where JPMorgan is now.


----------



## VoltAmps

Ghostface79 said:


> *This boom is never ending*. I thought it would take some time the the rezoning to produce anything exciting, but the beast that is NYC real estate proved me wrong.
> I hope they come up with a great design for that one. Watch out 1 Vandy.
> There’s the Times article.
> Out With the Old Building, in With the New for JPMorgan Chase (Published 2018)


It ended


----------



## LivinAWestLife

VoltAmps said:


> It ended


What a useless comment to a post 3 years ago. Even now many supertalls are U/C in New York.


----------



## streetscapeer

source


----------



## PDH

I don't really like being an envious person, but I would love to be there watching this! this is what I love about NYC, engineering becomes such an integral part of the works! Specially steel works, here in Australia, we hardly ever build in steel, mainly Concrete!


----------



## gincan

JohnDee said:


> It's still a monster tower. I'd prefer it if it were smaller and more graceful. A blockbusting behemoth, it just overpowers everything around it. I hate it honestly. I would prefer it if looked something like the new tower in KL, the one with the angular shaft. This is just a box from the past with steps.


Well, this is how it has always been in New York, even 100 years ago, WTC was absolutely monstrous with not a single building even 2/3 its height anywhere in Wall Street, and still it was just one in a long line of monstrous biuldings completely overshadowing everything else going back as far as the late 1800s. And midtown is the same with buildings going up many times the typical building height in the surrounding streets. Just think about how horrified neighbours were when GM built an absolute monster building right in front of Grand Army Plaza, one of the nicest areas in all of Manhattan before GM completely ruined it for ever with a huge ugly monster. Or the Equitable Building, you think the neighbours were happy with that one?


----------



## streetscapeer

*@superd 9*


----------



## AndrzGln

Wow that looks HUGEEE


----------



## A Chicagoan

*August 11:*


----------



## LadyAmanita

LadyAmanita said:


> Don't hold back, let him have it! With a few slight changes to the lyrics, this song is perfect for him. (Warning- sweary lyrics)


OMG, I messed up that same song, Saucy skyscrapers cussing out managers and tenants they don't like. But yes, we could totally do a Dimon remix, what do you have in mind?
His face is sooo punchable!


----------



## hkskyline

8/14

IMG_2729 by Brecht Bug, on Flickr


----------



## Kimiwind1184

The base is huge. This one will look good on street level.


----------



## hkskyline

*270 Park Avenue’s Massive Steel Base Takes Shape In Midtown East, Manhattan*

















































































270 Park Avenue's Massive Steel Base Takes Shape in Midtown East, Manhattan - New York YIMBY


Steelwork for the base of JPMorgan Chase's new 2.5 million-square-foot, 1,425-foot-tall 270 Park Avenue is quickly taking shape in Midtown East.



newyorkyimby.com


----------



## redcode

crumpledscruple









adamfrank64


----------



## hkskyline

*Park Avenue just might have monopoly on spiffy new office space *
New York Post _Excerpt_
July 25, 2021

Nobody knows when the city will truly be “post-pandemic,” but when it finally beats the virus woes for good, Park Avenue — that is, the blue-chip commercial zone between East 42d and East 59th streets — will be ready for it.

The corridor is in the midst of a $32 billion, public and private investment spree, according to Weitzman Associates, an investment and development advisory firm — likely the most of any 17-block stretch in town.

More than $13 billion in public infrastructure work has been completed or soon will be, of which the lion’s share is $11.2 billion for the MTA’s East Side Access — the underground, eight-track terminal that will bring the Long Island Rail Road into Grand Central Terminal for the first time.

Nearly $19 billion is committed to ongoing or planned commercial development, including the rising JP Morgan Chase tower at 270 Park Ave. ($4.04 billion), recently completed One Vanderbilt at 42nd Street ($3.32 billion), and the biggest of all — the proposed Project Commodore at 175 Park Ave., a 2.5 million-square-foot office and hotel skyscraper on a site that includes the now-closed Grand Hyatt Hotel.

More : Park Avenue just might have monopoly on spiffy new office space


----------



## Hudson11

filings submitted to the FAA for crane elevation studies. That means above ground construction should continue in earnest shortly. What you see currently is the exterior frame. 






Form 7460-1 for ASN 2021-AEA-10617-OE







oeaaa.faa.gov


----------



## streetscapeer

__
http://instagr.am/p/CSxvdUzMyWO/
















































































string_base_dave



















[


----------



## A Chicagoan

Fine-art construction photography...


----------



## redcode

Aug 19









urbaninsideout


----------



## waccamatt

trustevil said:


> So NY lost a seat. But you all should have known this would happen. That ppl would leave NYC in droves for places like Texas, who gained 2 seats. This is relevant in the vacant office space. Maybe construction jobs are blooming but not office jobs.


NYC added population. A significant amount.

2020 census


----------



## redcode

niamhring44









delphinedaniels


----------



## spectre000

Pics by me from this morning. Seeing this in person it's really impressive. I didn't really understand the height and scale. This is gonna be fun to watch.


----------



## redcode

Aug 29 by @baronson

baronsonphoto-20210829-006.jpg by Brian Aronson, trên Flickr

baronsonphoto-20210829-005.jpg by Brian Aronson, trên Flickr

baronsonphoto-20210829-004.jpg by Brian Aronson, trên Flickr

baronsonphoto-20210829-003.jpg by Brian Aronson, trên Flickr

baronsonphoto-20210829-002.jpg by Brian Aronson, trên Flickr

baronsonphoto-20210829-001.jpg by Brian Aronson, trên Flickr


----------



## redcode

cbrussa



























 c.lilianmarlen


----------



## storyteller

Maybe it was already asked, I tried to search the thread without success: Does anyone know why the two steal "plates" in the middle have this rather complex "compartmented" structure. More general: Why this "plate" and not a frame?


----------



## Mr.Blian97

storyteller said:


> Maybe it was already asked, I tried to search the thread without success: Does anyone know why the two steal "plates" in the middle have this rather complex "compartmented" structure. More general: Why this "plate" and not a frame?


I'm gonna guess it's a combination of necessity due to the amount of cantilevering at the base of the building (it may help reduce the necessary depth of a truss immediately above?), as well as the potential that those steel pieces could be completely encased in concrete as part of the core structure. There was another building in NYC that did a "steel first, concrete later" construction (I want to say it was 30 Hudson Yards), so maybe this is doing the same thing? It would make sense given the fact they had to demolish an existing building in two different halves while creating foundations for the new building, as opposed to digging a gigantic hole for the core to rise out.


----------



## 57th&1st

A few pics from this morning:


----------



## DovoS

Sorry, maybe it was already asked. Does anyone know why this building without underground floor?


----------



## Lincolnlover2005

DovoS said:


> Sorry, maybe it was already asked. Does anyone know why this building without underground floor?


The original tower didn’t have any underground floors. That and also most Park Avenue area supertalls don’t have underground floors due to the subway lines that run underneath them


----------



## redcode

Tectonicphoto


----------



## skcr

Is the construction going at a good pace? seems to be very slow


----------



## alfred287

Do you know when we will see the building going up?


----------



## Daniel_Mallorca1985




----------



## droneriot

skcr said:


> Is the construction going at a good pace? seems to be very slow


Pretty much the same pace as 1 Manhattan West in the beginning because of the no outer columns gimmick that some spoiled executive brat insisted on for no reason other than having it. Construction will be normal once that useless gimmick is finished.


----------



## UpwithOlives

Gimmick?! They’re both built over active rail yards with limited column placement opportunities. Brilliant engineering, certainly not a gimmick.


----------



## xing lin

DovoS said:


> Sorry, maybe it was already asked. Does anyone know why this building without underground floor?


There is a small basement on the Madison Avenue side of the site that's been retained from the original building, which is where the new stairwell core shaft will descend into. For the most part, there is nothing below this tower to dig into-- the Metro North railway yard _is_ its basement:
















The mega transfer columns are happening in tandem with a reconstruction of the rail shed below. Not a "gimmick" in any way, just very impressive engineering.








SkyscraperPage post with more info:





SkyscraperPage Forum - View Single Post - NEW YORK | 270 Park Ave | 1,388 FT | 58 FLOORS


SkyscraperPage.com's discussion forum is one of the world's most active community discussion portals for skyscraper, urbanism and building enthusiasts. Featuring coverage of the world's projects, there are topics that will appeal to the skyscraper enthusiast in everyone.



skyscraperpage.com


----------



## redcode

polaroidfog


----------



## Vivektvm

Lincolnlover2005 said:


> The original tower didn’t have any underground floors. That and also most Park Avenue area supertalls don’t have underground floors due to the subway lines that run underneath them


Yeah two levels of tracks from Grand Central run below Park Avenue up to 96th Street.


----------



## hkskyline

How would they drill the foundations down to the bedrock then if there are rail lines underneath and they can't fit in underground floors?


----------



## Hudson11

hkskyline said:


> How would they drill the foundations down to the bedrock then if there are rail lines underneath and they can't fit in underground floors?


I think it was reported awhile back that they are reinforcing existing foundations to repurpose them and drilling down where they can so it won't block any rails.

here's a structural peer review.



https://cryptome.org/000/JP-Morgan-270-Park-Avenue-NB-Structural-Peer-Review-2020-09-24.pdf





2.0 said:


> The lateral load resisting system is composed of a steel braced core with outriggers above
> the 3rd floor. Below the 3rd floor is the “Tabletop” structure which consists of sloping perimeter
> “Fan” columns, interior “V” columns and transfer girders. The tabletop structure in conjunction
> with 3rd floor diaphragm completes the lateral system above grade and transfers lateral forces
> from the superstructure to the concrete shear walls below grade. The steel braced core
> transfers on two 25’ deep built-up plate girders that are supported by the “V” columns on Gird
> Lines T3 and T7. The tabletop system transfers the lateral forces in the east-west direction
> down to the ground floor slab through the sloping columns. The ground floor slab serves as a
> diaphragm pulling the lateral forces to shear walls located at the west end of the site. The
> lateral forces are resolved through the shear walls into the foundation elements. In the north-
> south direction braces on grids D.1, SA, and K transfer lateral load to concrete shears walls
> aligned with the grids. The shear walls carry the lateral load down to the foundation elements. [/qupte]
> 
> 
> 
> 2.3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The typical building foundation consists of caisson caps supported by caisson groups. The
> caisson caps receive the shear walls, which in turn receive the V and fan columns. Some of
> the V and fan columns along grid T1 and T9 have vertical PT that starts at the base plate,
> continues through the shears walls and is anchored to or around steel framing connected
> directly to the caissons, see Fig. 7. The vertical PT anchors the columns that see uplift forces directly to the foundation
Click to expand...




4.0 said:


> 4.0 LOAD PATH REVIEW
> 
> The interior columns collect the loads from the superstructure floor by floor and transfer onto the
> two full story deep plate girders at the 3rd floor, spanning in an east-west direction. The load is
> then transferred thorough the plate girders into the interior “V-shape” columns along grids T3 and
> T7. Full fitted stiffeners within the plate girder help to provide a direct load path to the the “V”
> columns below.
> The perimeter columns have a more direct load path when compared to the interior columns. At
> the 3rd floor, the perimeter columns transition directly into the exterior “fan-shape” columns
> through a solid steel node. The load is then transferred directly into the below grade shear walls.
> The resulting lateral (kick) forces due to the sloped columns are resisted by axial tie members in
> the third floor and by a PT slab at the ground floor. Finally, the column loads on the shear walls
> travel through the wall to the top of the caisson caps, and then to the mini-caissons and into the
> bedrock.
> 
> The lateral load path is similar to the “kick” forces resulting from the gravity loads. Lateral shear is
> transferred as axial force through the sloping columns into the thick PT slab in the ground floor.
> This slab distributes the in-plane forces as shear to the shear walls below. Shear in the north-
> south direction is resisted by the walls oriented in the same direction, which then goes into the
> mini-caisson caps below the walls. The east-west shear is transferred through the ground floor
> slab to the west side of the building (west of grid D-1) where walls oriented east-west in plan then
> transfer the shear from the ground floor slab to the shear walls to spread footings and mini
> caissons.
> 
> TT has reviewed this load path and found it to be complete.


----------



## Hudson11

new vertical steel can be seen on earthcam.


----------



## NotNickAdams

Wow! Impressive how quickly this is going now that they've finished the center girders and fan columns. I would think they will be done with the crawler cranes soon and install tower cranes.


----------



## Munwon

Is there a good rendering of this project?


----------



## Lincolnlover2005

NotNickAdams said:


> Wow! Impressive how quickly this is going now that they've finished the center girders and fan columns. I would think they will be done with the crawler cranes soon and install tower cranes.


They’re probably building it fast because since it’s their world headquarters, the longer it takes to build it, the more they begin to lose money.


----------



## streetscapeer

Munwon said:


> Is there a good rendering of this project?


Nope


----------



## redcode

there's some okay-ish renders from this recent New York YIMBY article








270 Park Avenue's First Office Levels Begin Formation in Midtown East, Manhattan - New York YIMBY


Construction is rising on JP Morgan Chase‘s new 1,425-foot supertall headquarters at 270 Park Avenue in Midtown East, Manhattan.



www.newyorkyimby.com


----------



## redcode

from the same article








270 Park Avenue's First Office Levels Begin Formation in Midtown East, Manhattan - New York YIMBY


Construction is rising on JP Morgan Chase‘s new 1,425-foot supertall headquarters at 270 Park Avenue in Midtown East, Manhattan.



www.newyorkyimby.com






> Construction has reached the first office levels of JP Morgan Chase‘s new 1,425-foot supertall headquarters at 270 Park Avenue in Midtown East. Steel assembly on the gargantuan ground floor has reached the eastern end of the rectangular parcel, while the rest of the flaring diagonal columns complete the outline of the base. This week, workers began to weld the first set of vertical columns and diagonal beams above the ground floor, which will become trading floors in the first tier of floor plates in the 2.5-million-square-foot behemoth. Tishman Construction is the general contractor for the project, located between Park and Madison Avenues and 47th and 48th Streets.






















> The first portion of the steel diagrid pattern has begun formation, as seen in the following photos. These diagonal components will continue outward to the edges of the tower, then return to the center, forming a diamond pattern that will be repeated four times on both the eastern and western elevations.












> Since our last update in August, the deep trapezoidal trusses that run parallel from east to west down the center of 270 Park Avenue now span the full block between Park and Madison Avenues. This assembly and the multiple multi-story columns had to be erected first before any work on the office floors above could commence. Metal decking can be spotted being laid down across the start of the first office trading floor.


----------



## Lincolnlover2005

Wait so what’s the final height? Yimby’s still saying 1,425 ft?


----------



## xing lin

I believe YIMBY is run by enthusiasts just like us, with access to much of the same information as we do. When they have inside sources, like with the exclusive model photos for 270PA, they let us know clearly. As far as what is publicly known, 1388ft is mentioned as the approximate height in the zoning and structural report documents. 270PA being 1425ft was mentioned in the documents for the nearby 175 Park Ave and 415 Madison.

As an aside, it bothers me a bit that their 270 Park Ave articles are still fronted by the ATChain rendering, which is clearly an early massing concept (no pleating of the north/south facades, no diagonal bracing on the east/west sides like the steel that just went up, and far too many floors spaced far too closely). I suppose it's fair as it's the only rendering produced officially by a studio which has been published so far.


----------



## Munwon

Munwon said:


> Is there a good rendering of this project?


Ask and ye shall receive


----------



## streetscapeer

Munwon said:


> Ask and ye shall receive


^^ It's not the correct rendering, doesn't even correspond to what has been built so far.


----------



## Hudson11

the SSP diagram is probably the best rendering so far, despite its lack of context. 









Source


----------



## Hudson11

4 tower cranes 






Form 7460-1 for ASN 2021-AEA-10615-OE







oeaaa.faa.gov










Form 7460-1 for ASN 2021-AEA-10616-OE







oeaaa.faa.gov










Form 7460-1 for ASN 2021-AEA-10617-OE







oeaaa.faa.gov










Form 7460-1 for ASN 2021-AEA-10618-OE







oeaaa.faa.gov


----------



## spectre000

4 cranes... I hope that means this will rise really fast.


----------



## xing lin

I thought this would be a fun project; I've edited the famous YIMBY and ATChain renderings to reflect the design shown in the latest DOB diagrams (the symmetrical, tapered design):
















Hope you all enjoy it in the absence of official images


----------



## aquamaroon

Wow great work! Thank you very much for sharing 

Edit: Just a thought, if you ever want to revisit this project you might consider putting in 350 Park Avenue, another 400+ meter tall building proposed in the area:









NEW YORK | 350 Park Avenue | 442m | 1450ft | 70 fl | Pro


Most companies have not promised a work form home option beyond 2021. There have been several high profile leases in the city even in the midst of the pandemic. Office Towers aren't a thing of the past. SL Green just inked a lease at 1 Vanderbilt this past week. Satellite cities with transit...




www.skyscrapercity.com





Vornado seems to be putting the breaks on this tower for now but it'll hopefully be built in the near term future!


----------



## ZeusUpsistos

xing lin said:


> Hope you all enjoy it in the absence of official images


That is quite amazing, great job !


----------



## oud-Rotterdammer

spectre000 said:


> 4 cranes... I hope that means this will rise really fast.


The dates on the forms say something like: until December 2023...?


----------



## Taller & Taller

Hudson11 said:


> 4 tower cranes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Form 7460-1 for ASN 2021-AEA-10615-OE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oeaaa.faa.gov
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Form 7460-1 for ASN 2021-AEA-10616-OE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oeaaa.faa.gov
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Form 7460-1 for ASN 2021-AEA-10617-OE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oeaaa.faa.gov
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Form 7460-1 for ASN 2021-AEA-10618-OE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oeaaa.faa.gov


Crane #3, a 1.618 feet tall crane! Not bad.


----------



## redcode

cperruna


----------



## skcr

Tower crane - very nice !


----------



## xing lin

aquamaroon said:


> Wow great work! Thank you very much for sharing
> 
> Edit: Just a thought, if you ever want to revisit this project you might consider putting in 350 Park Avenue, another 400+ meter tall building proposed in the area:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NEW YORK | 350 Park Avenue | 442m | 1450ft | 70 fl | Pro
> 
> 
> Most companies have not promised a work form home option beyond 2021. There have been several high profile leases in the city even in the midst of the pandemic. Office Towers aren't a thing of the past. SL Green just inked a lease at 1 Vanderbilt this past week. Satellite cities with transit...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.skyscrapercity.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vornado seems to be putting the breaks on this tower for now but it'll hopefully be built in the near term future!


I've updated the rendering to include 350 Park alongside all other current proposals for the Midtown East zone 








(Original photo source: Gensler)








(Original photo source: ATChain)


----------



## hkskyline

9/24

270 Park Ave / Manhattan by Steven Vance, on Flickr


----------



## ArikArikArik

oud-Rotterdammer said:


> The dates on the forms say something like: until December 2023...?


One of them states 30th september 2024, the rest will go off earlier.


----------



## Hudson11

oud-Rotterdammer said:


> The dates on the forms say something like: until December 2023...?


FAA permits for construction are not permanent. After Dec 2023, if the cranes are still needed, another review will be conducted.


----------



## baronson

From my walk today:


----------



## NanoRay

But wait, 343 Madison isn’t like that short. Hint: One Vanderbilt’s The Summit observation deck is 1,020’, but in this photoshop, 343 Madison is shorter than the deck. Even shorter than Chrysler Building.

Also, pls show us the skyline with such skyscrapers like Tower Fifth, 350 Park, 417 Madison, Affirmation Tower, 265 W 45th (concept design, not the ugly one pls), and so on. 😄


----------



## xing lin

NanoRay said:


> But wait, 343 Madison isn’t like that short. Hint: One Vanderbilt’s The Summit observation deck is 1,020’, but in this photoshop, 343 Madison is shorter than the deck. Even shorter than Chrysler Building.


Although 343 has been approved at 1050', the design itself has not yet been revised up from 932' (or the 1050' design simply has not been released):
















I can do Tower Fifth and 350 Park right now, but I haven't yet modeled any West Side proposals.


Edit: Bringing my rendering over the page 








Photo credit: Ryan Kawailani Ozawa (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)


----------



## A Chicagoan

Photo from Dec 14 on Flickr (the photographer did not allow sharing unfortunately so I can't post the picture directly here)


----------



## xing lin

A merry Christmas to all


----------



## trustevil

This is an ugly building I have to say it. It's pretty tall but it's not that pretty... Just my opinion


----------



## redcode

JPMorgan Chase’s Supertall Headquarters Continues Construction At 270 Park Avenue In Midtown East, Manhattan


----------



## aquamaroon

Will this building have a concrete core or will it simply be a steel structure all the way to the top? (a la 30 HY)


----------



## NewYorkCity76

aquamaroon said:


> Will this building have a concrete core or will it simply be a steel structure all the way to the top? (a la 30 HY)


I think it'll be a steel structure all the way up, considering that this building sits above the Metro-North tracks and soon to be the LIRR


----------



## aquamaroon

Gotcha thank you for the response! So again similar to 30 HY, that was also a steel structure as it was obviously being built above an active rail yard.


----------



## NewYorkCity76

aquamaroon said:


> Gotcha thank you for the response! So again similar to 30 HY, that was also a steel structure as it was obviously being built above an active rail yard.


No problem!

And yeah, since both sit on top of the railroad tracks I would assume 270 Park will be going up the same way (in terms of using steel)


----------



## trustevil

Will that result in a quicker rise or the opposite? Sad this building had potential until the height cut. Idk I still find the design a bit uninspiring.


----------



## NewYorkCity76

trustevil said:


> Will that result in a quicker rise or the opposite? Sad this building had potential until the height cut. Idk I still find the design a bit uninspiring.


I believe the building is supposed to rise a lot quicker once all the four cranes are assembled and ready in use. Also, I heard that it is supposed to go up around 1400ft, but I'm not exactly sure


----------



## trustevil

NewYorkCity76 said:


> I believe the building is supposed to rise a lot quicker once all the four cranes are assembled and ready in use. Also, I heard that it is supposed to go up around 1400ft, but I'm not exactly sure


Guess we'll have to wait and see. I thought this was the final height


----------



## NewYorkCity76

Yeah, we'll see. If not then it is in the range between 1,388-1,400ft, or possibly higher.


----------



## NewYorkCity76

Three cranes are built so far! 😃

__
http://instagr.am/p/CYBvSrgL-rc/


----------



## ArchGuy1

Does anyone know if there will be an observation deck near the top like at One Vanderbilt and 30 Hudson Yards?


----------



## xing lin

ArchGuy1 said:


> Does anyone know if there will be an observation deck near the top like at One Vanderbilt and 30 Hudson Yards?


I don't believe there will be any publicly accessible floors in this building. The highest occupied floors of this tower are labelled as "client center" floors:


----------



## ArchGuy1

xing lin said:


> I don't believe there will be any publicly accessible floors in this building. The highest occupied floors of this tower are labelled as "client center" floors:
> View attachment 2593446


I certainly wish there was a public observation deck included in the plans as it would generate a lot of money and drawf other supertall towers in the area.


----------



## Kyll.Ing.

ArchGuy1 said:


> I certainly wish there was a public observation deck included in the plans as it would generate a lot of money and drawf other supertall towers in the area.


But it would also require the building owner to operate the facilities required to accommodate masses of tourists (including, presumably, a dedicated entrance and elevators), and it would occupy the highest spaces of the building, which they might have other profitable plans for. It may not be an entirely attractive prospect for the building owners.

If I'm not mistaken, it also wouldn't be the highest observation deck in the city (below that of 1WTC, Hudson Yards, and possibly the Empire State Building), so its tourist draw would be somewhat limited.


----------



## ArchGuy1

Kyll.Ing. said:


> But it would also require the building owner to operate the facilities required to accommodate masses of tourists (including, presumably, a dedicated entrance and elevators), and it would occupy the highest spaces of the building, which they might have other profitable plans for. It may not be an entirely attractive prospect for the building owners.
> 
> If I'm not mistaken, it also wouldn't be the highest observation deck in the city (below that of 1WTC, Hudson Yards, and possibly the Empire State Building), so its tourist draw would be somewhat limited.


How high would the observation deck be at the JPMorgan Chase World Headquarters compared to One World Observatory, the 102nd floor of the Empire State Building, or 30 Hudson Yards?


----------



## Hudson11

Nice photos, I concur with the sentiment. My mind goes to Noah's ark looking at the shape of it.


----------



## A Chicagoan

Indeed, the shape conjures the image of some sort of ship or even spaceship that has landed.


----------



## NanoRay

baronson said:


> I walked by today with just my cell. It's really difficult to capture this building in its entirety--both physically and emotionally. There were several people gawking at it at every angle I walked around. Not just tourists, but office workers as well. It has such a huge monolith quality. Like a mothership that has landed. It's hard to describe, I was transfixed. It's amazing that almost 100 years after the first skyscrapers went up, the same feelings of genuine awe are still evoked. I highly suggest if you're around the city to just walk by it. Even at this stage, it's incredible.


I don’t know how to describe it, but it looks very clean and used less equipments than One Vanderbilt and the fact that it might not use the yellow tape something or I might be wrong since it’s too early to tell. Looks small and narrow but it’s a beast.


----------



## CNTower246810

Great pictures/update Baronson! I didn't notice to many people other than myself looking at it back in September, but the heftiness of the steel is what left an impression on me, all the engineering is truly astonishing.

These pics show that the steel is now already up to the 7th floor.



NanoRay said:


> I don’t know how to describe it, but it looks very clean and used less equipments than One Vanderbilt and the fact that it might not use the yellow tape something or I might be wrong since it’s too early to tell. Looks small and narrow but it’s a beast.


It has 2 more cranes than One Vanderbilt had, but it may look "cleaner" because there is no core so we are able to see through the ground level to the opposite side, the plot is also much bigger than One Vanderbilt's. You shouldn't let the photos deceive you though, the angled columns are quite massive. Which yellow tape are you referring to though?


----------



## NanoRay

Remember when Central Park Tower was under construction right? I’m talking about some yellow wraps on top which were later removed. That.


----------



## CNTower246810

NanoRay said:


> Remember when Central Park Tower was under construction right? I’m talking about some yellow wraps on top which were later removed. That.


That is the safety cocoon netting, all skyscraper construction employs them, that particular opaque like variant that is typically yellow or orange is used for concrete buildings (Central Park Tower, 35 Hudson Yards, 111 W 57th). Since this is a steel building, the cocoon netting will most likely be gray/white, black, or blue and translucent as it was with One WTC and One Vanderbilt and a number of other recent steel buildings in the city. It will probably be put up once a few more floors are built.
(my photo)


----------



## NanoRay

New photos pls?


----------



## 57th&1st

NanoRay said:


> New photos pls?


Here's a bunch from this morning:


----------



## spectre000

Just incredible. Feels massive already. I'm gonna love watching this one rise. I hope this is one where glass installation will start early.


----------



## baronson

From today:


----------



## CNTower246810

Steel has climbed to the 9th floor and the basket climbing systems have been added to the cranes.


----------



## xing lin

Not one of mine, finally-- I've just found this beautiful wireframe diagram of 270 Park Avenue on the web page for an event presented by the CEO of Severud Associates, the Engineer of Record for this building! 
















The Changing Skyline of Midtown Manhattan - Civil and Environmental Engineering and Earth Sciences


After eight years of design and construction, One Vanderbilt has become Midtown Manhattan’s tallest office tower at a height of 1,401 ft. Planning for the building started in 2013 and the tower opened in September 2020 with a $3.3 billion building offering 1.7 million sq. ft. of office, retail...




ceees.nd.edu


----------



## skcr

Reminds One Vanderbilt










https://forum.newyorkyimby.com/t/new-york-one-vanderbilt-1-401-ft-67-floors/207/1072


----------



## 2mchris

I hope they have the correct plans


----------



## Hudson11

1 Vanderbilt did have a concrete core though. It was a steel-first build like 1 WTC.


----------



## xing lin

The info we've seen so far points to two design variants that seem equally likely-- either with diamond braces all the way up, or with A-frames on the east-west facades of the top two segments:






































Original photo 1 by Dimitry B., on Flickr


----------



## thestealthyartist

I don't know how to feel about this building.

It somehow manages to be both grand and out of place at the same time. It's too thick and the side bracing doesn't complement the rest of the skyscraper.

Either way, the way it's rising from the base right now is magnificent. Seeing it go up will certainly be quite a sight.


----------



## droneriot

Last few images look like an imperial star destroyer on vertical takeoff.


----------



## Mcully56964

I know that I will probably be in the minority about this, but I kind of hope it's the second design. I know it's a subtle difference but I always kind of liked the top two setbacks being the same height as one another for some reason, and I also don't really care for the diamond beams going all the way up to the top like that. I think that the triangular beams up top work better for the crown area imo.


----------



## xing lin

Mcully56964 said:


> I know that I will probably be in the minority about this, but I kind of hope it's the second design. I know it's a subtle difference but I always kind of liked the top two setbacks being the same height as one another for some reason, and I also don't really care for the diamonds beams going all the way up to the top like that. I think that the triangular beams up top work better for the crown area imo.


I fully agree with you there-- the triangular frames have much more room to soar upwards compared to the stout final diamonds in the other version. The top two setbacks being equal also draws the eye upwards more pleasantly, sort of like the way art-deco massings inflect upwards at their tip. The other version looks stunted in comparison without the soaring final segment.


----------



## NanoRay

droneriot said:


> Last few images look like an imperial star destroyer on vertical takeoff.


[Star Wars music playing]


----------



## hkskyline

*JPMorgan Chase’s 270 Park Avenue Continues Its Ascent In Midtown East, Manhattan*








JPMorgan Chase's 270 Park Avenue Continues Its Ascent in Midtown East, Manhattan - New York YIMBY


Steel construction is rising on JP Morgan Chase's 1,388-foot-tall, 70-story 270 Park Avenue in Midtown East, Manhattan.



newyorkyimby.com


----------



## NanoRay

Hopefully the glass panels will show up once the building reaches the first setback.


----------



## Hudson11

first they need to erect the protective netting and after that they need to start fireproofing all this steel. Cladding won't pop up for at least a couple of months.


----------



## Hindustani

this one is an absolute beauty. the way its coming up. It got ESB, John Hancock building both combined into one.


----------



## Zaz965

when we talk about stepped buildings, I think new york should have a willis tower alike, no kidding


----------



## Hindustani

problem with sears tower is it is just plain ugly.
there is nothing redeaming about sears tower architecture. 



Zaz965 said:


> when we talk about stepped buildings, I think new york should have a willis tower alike, no kidding


----------



## NotNickAdams

Hindustani, if you truly believe that, then you really don't have an understanding or an appreciation of architecture.


----------



## Hudson11

IMG_5302 by Brecht Bug, on Flickr


IMG_5311 by Brecht Bug, on Flickr


----------



## NanoRay

Hudson11 said:


> IMG_5302 by Brecht Bug, on Flickr
> 
> 
> IMG_5311 by Brecht Bug, on Flickr


Kinda odd to see a building jumped a floor and then build it. 🤨


----------



## Leshommes

What a strange awkward base. This is gonna be such a weird looking tower.


----------



## NanoRay

Just for fun off-topic stuff, here’s my MetLife Building 3D Model on SketchFab (I don’t make this in Blender, I made this on Tinkercad to test it to the limit): 








MetLife Building on SketchFab.









MetLife Building on Tinkercad. This is the same one but private copy since though the original one preview is broken.


----------



## thestealthyartist

Noice


----------



## NanoRay

thestealthyartist said:


> Noice


Thank you! I really appreciate it! Also I created the Union Carbide Building, you know that one which stood in the same place as this new one!









I created it as when it was built in 1960.


----------



## thestealthyartist

Also really cool, the shaders make it even better!


----------



## NanoRay

I’m wondering how many floors get built each month or week? Looks like one floor each week…


----------



## philip

This is the slowest construction in the history of NYC. The Empire state building and Chrysler were built much faster, and that was decades ago.


----------



## xing lin

Setting aside the many NYC projects that have progressed at a rate slower than this building, 270 Park is constructed above an active rail yard and has no vertical connections between level 3 and the foundations. The level 3 'tabletop' is akin to the Hudson Yards platform, in that it's basically an elevated ground level that the rest of the building sits on, and the office floors are flying up now that it's moved past the complex base. If you look back to earlier construction photos, even the 'tabletop' structure came together relatively fast, starting even before the entire former Union Carbide Building had been completely demolished.















Comparing this building's construction to that of the Empire State or the Chrysler building is like comparing apples to Chryslers.


----------



## CNTower246810

I agree with Xing's sentiments, comparing structures from completely different time periods on the pace of their constructions does not make sense because there are a plethora of reasons why a building's speed is slow or fast.

Per NYguy's newest set of photos on SSP, portions of the safety cocoon are being put in place now. 2 floors above the current highest level of columns (at floor 9) is the first major outrigger truss and set of mechanical floors and 8 more floors above floor 9 to the first set back (~ 17th floor). The 10th floor is where the angled brace columns will reverse direction to form the diamonds on the sides.


----------



## droneriot

philip said:


> This is the slowest construction in the history of NYC. The Empire state building and Chrysler were built much faster, and that was decades ago.


It's gonna go up fast now. It's the same as 1 Manhattan West which also sits on an ultra thin base and while they built the base it also seemed (from the outside) like they were barely working for what felt like a year. Once that part was done, it went up at a normal speed.


----------



## mclancer

With all the concrete and concrete enclosed steel columns on most buildings nowadays, it is refreshing to watch a steel-framed building rising. Reminds me of the old days of the construction of the Empire State building


----------



## ArchGuy1

xing lin said:


> While it is true that not every office proposal is obligated to include an observatory, 270 Park is certainly the odd one out among the current crop of office supertalls. I would guess that the main reason is that the developer JPMorgan is also the singular tenant of the entire building, and thus don't need the income of an observatory to supplement various tenants coming and going (unlike SL Green, Related etc.).
> View attachment 2598351


I do wish that New York City would have required an observation deck as a privately owned public space on the top floors as part of a building permit. These spaces are seen with a number of skyscraper lobbies in New York City. Furthermore, the city should have made it a requirement for such a deck to be open from 9 am to 11 pm daily and to not charge an admission fee of more than $10. The skyscrapers that have observation decks are expensive with tickets costing well over $30. By requiring a privately owned public space on the top floors of the JPMORGAN Chase Headquarters, there could have been a space with easy access for working and middle class New Yorkers that could not to afford to visit the existing observatories on a regular basis.





Privately Owned Public Space Overview - DCP


Privately Owned Public Space POPS are an amenity provided and maintained by a developer for public use, in exchange for additional floor area. In 2007, the NY City Council adopted revised standards to facilitate the design and construction of unique and exciting outdoor spaces that are truly...



www1.nyc.gov


----------



## Hudson11

middle class New Yorkers can't afford a $40 day trip? You pay more than that to treat your friends and family to dinner at a sit down restaurant. And that's not exactly a priority for anybody below that threshold. Enough talk about observatories that AREN'T happening.


----------



## MarshallKnight

Hudson11 said:


> middle class New Yorkers can't afford a $40 day trip? You pay more than that to treat your friends and family to dinner at a sit down restaurant. And that's not exactly a priority for anybody below that threshold. Enough talk about observatories that AREN'T happening.


Not to mention JPMC is barely over a thousand feet away from not one but two other observation decks at One Vanderbilt and Top of the Rock. How many decks could one neighborhood possibly need?


----------



## ArchGuy1

Hudson11 said:


> middle class New Yorkers can't afford a $40 day trip? You pay more than that to treat your friends and family to dinner at a sit down restaurant. And that's not exactly a priority for anybody below that threshold. Enough talk about observatories that AREN'T happening.


The prices are $40 per person, which if you multiply that up for a family is a lot of money.


----------



## Hudson11

speaking of observatories and 1 Vanderbilt, looks like you can see about half of this from Summit behind 380 Madison


Aerial View, Midtown Manhattan, Central Park, Summit Observation Deck, One Vanderbilt, New York City by Lenny Spiro, on Flickr


----------



## NanoRay

Wow, it’s so massive.


----------



## NewYorkCity76

Hudson11 said:


> speaking of observatories and 1 Vanderbilt, looks like you can see about half of this from Summit behind 380 Madison
> 
> 
> Aerial View, Midtown Manhattan, Central Park, Summit Observation Deck, One Vanderbilt, New York City by Lenny Spiro, on Flickr


The new cocoon netting being set up gives me some One Vandy vibes during construction


----------



## lozza

Freaky podium. I'd be too scared to go in it. Reminds me of the Citicorp Centre. You think logically it shouldn't stand up lol 🤣


----------



## CNTower246810

Now that most of the cocoon system has been set up and the cranes have made a jump, steel work has resumed on floor 9.









This will also be a nice camera view to watch 570 5th Ave go up once it does.


----------



## NanoRay

Hudson11 said:


> first they need to erect the protective netting and after that they need to start fireproofing all this steel. Cladding won't pop up for at least a couple of months.


The protective netting (safety cocoons) were erected now. So now are they fireproofing the steel?


----------



## NanoRay

3/30


__
http://instagr.am/p/CbvfECXNdy1/









Originally posted by NYGuy on SSP

Seems like the building have gained a floor just a week later.


----------



## CNTower246810

Although it appears fully complete, parts of the safety cocoon are still being assembled, mostly on the east and west ends. There is no specific timeline for fireproofing the steel, the cocoon being assembled is not an indicator that it will start. Once we see white sheets covering floors, then we will know that fireproofing is ongoing. According to the above photo that may be the case for the floor under the table top, but a closer street view image needs to be taken to verify that. It may start once the 10 and 11th floors are steeled and decked over. Columns have already been erected in some portions of the floor plate for the 10th and 11th floors. Beam and girder installation may stall until the cranes make another jump.


----------



## Hudson11

this tower is unique in the recent crop of office supertalls because its being built by the owner for the owner and their own operations. Hudson Yards, WTC, 1 Vanderbilt are all ventures by developers seeking a profit by leasing out to other companies. 









JPMorgan Chase Still Moving 'Full Steam Ahead' on New Headquarters


CEO Jamie Dimon makes clear that hybrid and remote work plans won't derail those for the new tower near Grand Central.




commercialobserver.com







> “We are moving full steam ahead with building our new headquarters in New York City,” Dimon’s letter said, echoing a similar commitment he made in last year’s letter. “We will, of course, consolidate even more employees into this building, which will house between 12,000 and 14,000 people. We are extremely excited about the building’s public spaces, state-of-the-art technology, and health and wellness amenities, among many other features. It’s in the best location in one of the world’s greatest cities.”
> 
> Dimon also reiterated language surrounding changing trends in office usage, again acknowledging that remote work has changed the way JPMorgan approaches its workplace needs. “As a result, for every 100 employees, we may need seats for approximately 60 to 75 on average — with an appropriate increase in conference room, private office and amenity space to make it a great work environment.”


----------



## CNTower246810

About a weeks worth of work has produced just about another floor as the 10th floor is now being decked over. The beams for the 11th floor probably won't be installed until the cranes make their jump. We can really see the heftiness of the steel nodes for the outrigger belt truss on the 11th floor, that maze of steel will be amazing to watch being assembled.

At the current pace, giving some leeway for the construction of the mechanical/outrigger floors, I'd say the first setback of the building will be reached in about 1.5 months time, somewhere at the end of May. I believe once the safety cocoon is lifted again that the fire proofing will begin.


----------



## Kyll.Ing.

Hudson11 said:


> this tower is unique in the recent crop of office supertalls because its being built by the owner for the owner and their own operations. Hudson Yards, WTC, 1 Vanderbilt are all ventures by developers seeking a profit by leasing out to other companies.


This can be a double-edged sword, however, if the user profile of the building ever changes. Imagine JPMorgan Chase going bankrupt, outgrowing the tower, or having to move for any other reason. If the building is tailored for their purpose alone, it can be difficult to re-purpose it for other tenants. If the building is built for only one tenant, they would need a similarly-sized tenant to move in for the building to be usable without a major renovation. Alternately, they would have to split it up somehow, and this can be a costly affair. Imagine, for instance, if the building only has one huge staff canteen. Or there's only room for one reception area. Or if most offices can only access toilets (or evacuation staircases) by going through other offices. 

A fairly new office building in Oslo had to have a fairly expensive retrofit when its single tenant, which the building had been tailored for, moved out. No other tenants had the exact same needs, but the building was completely unsuitable for a split, so the owners had to invest as much money rebuilding it as they had to build it in the first place, fifteen years earlier.


----------



## trustevil

It's progressing that's good. But I'm still in the minority probably by saying it's a very uninspiring(dull) design.


----------



## ArikArikArik

Better late than never!









JPMorgan Chase Unveils Plans for New Global Headquarters Building in New York City | Foster + Partners


JPMorgan Chase today unveiled the design for its new state-of-the-art global headquarters at 270 Park Avenue. The 1,388-foot, 60-story skyscraper – designed by Foster + Partners – will be New York City’s largest all-electric tower with net zero operational emissions.




www.fosterandpartners.com






More renders here:








JP Morgan Chase unveils its new Park Avenue headquarters tower


The financial giant run by Jamie Dimon on Thursday unveiled the long-secret design of its new, 1,388-feet-tall cloudbuster, which it kept under wraps even after construction started two years ago.




nypost.com






DBOX renderings.








A video here:








JPMorgan Chase Unveils Plans for New Global Headquarters Building in New York City


JPMorgan Chase today unveiled the design for its new state-of-the-art global headquarters at 270 Park Avenue, reinforcing its commitment to New York C



www.businesswire.com


----------



## Mcully56964

Looks beautiful! Especially at night! I really love how the lighting is set into the beams like that!


----------



## UrbanImpact

More from Foster's site:








JPMorgan Chase Unveils Plans for New Global Headquarters Building in New York City | Foster + Partners


JPMorgan Chase today unveiled the design for its new state-of-the-art global headquarters at 270 Park Avenue. The 1,388-foot, 60-story skyscraper – designed by Foster + Partners – will be New York City’s largest all-electric tower with net zero operational emissions.




www.fosterandpartners.com


----------



## Hudson11

Looks like a new icon alright. And the best angles from the East and West with the subtle taper and full diamond motif are not even rendered.









NEW YORK | JPMorgan Chase World Headquarters | 423m |...


That Green building by the Rockefeller Center, is that Tower Fifth? Did it get a redesign? I'm pretty sure, yes, it is Tower Fifth, but just a rough approximation of the designs/renders we've all already seen w/out updates.




www.skyscrapercity.com


----------



## ArikArikArik

Hoping for this!


----------



## Hudson11

__
http://instagr.am/p/CcVJ49VoVWm/




> 270 Park Avenue will be New York City’s largest all-electric skyscraper with net zero operational emissions and will be 100% powered by renewable energy sourced from a New York State hydroelectric plant.
> The project also recycled, reused or upcycled 97% of the building materials from the demolition – far exceeding the 75% requirement of the leading green building standard.


----------



## CNTower246810

This is really going to be something else, the base transparency will be phenomenal to see and it will certainly lighten up the surroundings at ground level. Xinglin did a great job in his early portrayals of the building. I think the crown of the building and the chevrons will make the building an instant talking piece in the day and by night.

Also glad that the more proportional step down with all chevrons iteration was chosen. It will make the larger N/S profile be more balanced.


----------



## UrbanImpact

I love the bronze color!


----------



## NanoRay

FINALLY THE RENDERINGS!!! YESSSSSSS!!!


----------



## Zaz965

I like brown trussed buildings


----------



## spectre000

Absolutely stunning.


----------



## Munwon

Very, very American looking


----------



## Lincolnlover2005

The Union Carbide Building was nothing compared to this!!!!


----------



## MarshallKnight

Cheers to all the online sleuths who deduced this was essentially going to be the design many months in advance. Now that we've gotten some more details, I am even more confident that I will love this tower. Some of the early teases had me worried this would be clad in a garish gold or bright bronze, but this cladding looks very subtle and sophisticated. I'm most pleased with the base, which absolutely levitates, like a more muscular version of the Manhattan West lobbies. Really really fine work by Foster + Partners.


----------



## A Chicagoan

MarshallKnight said:


> Cheers to all the online sleuths who deduced this was essentially going to be the design many months in advance.


Yeah, I hadn't even realized that there was still officially no design.


----------



## matsoc

Just a quick photo taken by me while I was passing by 2 days ago.
It certainly feels very large.


----------



## joeyoe121

Those columns at the base are absolutely insane, looking forward to seeing the finished result


----------



## ASAdam

Can't wait to see those in person


----------



## Hudson11

White tulips on Park Avenue by Noel Y. Calingasan (nyclovesnyc), on Flickr


----------



## hkskyline

*JPMorgan Chase Supertall Continues Ascent At 270 Park Avenue In Midtown East, Manhattan*


> Construction is continuing to ascend on 270 Park Avenue, JPMorgan Chase‘s new 60-story supertall headquarters in Midtown East. Designed by Norman Foster of Foster + Partners and developed by Tishman Speyer, the 1,388-foot-tall skyscraper will yield 2.5 million square feet of office space and will set the record for the tallest New York City building to be fully powered by a hydroelectric power plant. 270 Park Avenue is rising on a full-block parcel bound by Park Avenue to the east, Madison Avenue to the west, East 47th Street to the south, and East 48th Street to the north.
> 
> A few more floors have been added since our last construction update in early March, and a safety cocoon has been installed around the edges of the floor plates. The cranes are due for another jump in order to keep up with the fast pace of construction, and fireproofing the steel could likely commence in the coming weeks. 270 Park Avenue’s concrete cores have yet to begin formation within the footprint of the supertall.











JPMorgan Chase Supertall Continues Ascent at 270 Park Avenue in Midtown East, Manhattan - New York YIMBY


Construction is rising on 270 Park Avenue, JPMorgan Chase's 60-story supertall headquarters from Foster + Partners and Tishman Speyer in Midtown East.



newyorkyimby.com


----------



## trustevil

Is there a final height confirmation? that's all I wanna know


----------



## NanoRay

trustevil said:


> Is there a final height confirmation? that's all I wanna know


Well, so far we know that the building will be 1,388’ although YIMBY says around 1,400’. So probably it might be in between.


----------



## Hudson11

It is 1388ft. Or maybe 1389ft, but that might just be the given leeway. 1450ft is AMSL, which is where that old figure evidently came, as per FAA reviews






Form 7460-1 for ASN 2021-AEA-9353-OE







oeaaa.faa.gov







> Proposed building with multiple tiers ranging from 486' AMSL to 1450' AMSL, including all appurtenances.


----------



## MarshallKnight

Zaz965 said:


> the neighbor 383 madison avenue is already a landmark for me because I like octogonal buildings
> 383 Madison Avenue by Martin Jones, on Flickr


Amen. 383 is at the top of a very short list of good-looking postmodernist towers. Even though 270 will literally overshadow it, I think 383 will always be more charming.


----------



## 57th&1st

From Saturday - a few quick snaps from the window of a moving cab:


----------



## CNTower246810

A months worth of work on the major mechanical floor and subsequent mezzanine and low transition floors above it. 4 more office floors atop the columns of the transition floor (columns that are visible) and the first setback will be reached at the 5th floor (the 18th floor) most likely some time in July. The decked over floor is the 13th with the column splices reaching the 14th floor. I suspect we won't be able to see the opposite corner of the building and see the full floor plate behind the Helmsley building until the setback is reached. 3 of the cranes have also made a very large jump as a result of the height of the mechanical floor.

The steel marking the cores has also been added at ground level and fireproofing for the 2nd trading floor will begin in the following days. We can also see through the large gap in the middle section of the floor the transition of the core shafts from their location near Madison Ave to the center of the building.


----------



## limerickguy

New to this thread. Just wanted to ask, where are the site offices for this site? Do they usually occupy a lower floor once complete and use that? I imagine space is hard to come by to set up any compound.


----------



## CNTower246810

limerickguy said:


> New to this thread. Just wanted to ask, where are the site offices for this site? Do they usually occupy a lower floor once complete and use that? I imagine space is hard to come by to set up any compound.


In NY, if room permits, construction trailers are normally set up right next to the site, sometimes on the sidewalk space (even suspended above the sidewalk in some instances) or even into the street and the fenced in area enlarged. Dependent on the project, they do sometimes set up shop inside the building at a certain point.

As for 270's case, there are a few construction trailers spread throughout the site, a few on ground level (where space permits), on the mezzanine floor under the tabletop, and on the temporary cantilever on Madison Ave.


----------



## skcr




----------



## kenamour

https://forum.newyorkyimby.com/t/new-york-270-park-ave-1-388-ft-70-floors/4189/2078


----------



## ArikArikArik

*


http://instagr.am/p/CfEJb2ioOQA/
*


----------



## skcr

24/06/2022


----------



## kenamour

https://forum.newyorkyimby.com/t/new-york-270-park-ave-1-388-ft-70-floors/4189/2079


----------



## ArikArikArik

This is what Foster posted in IG, linked above.

Speaking of these sketches, would have preferred if the crown had triangles and not diamonds, altough, so that their size would be similar to the 2 triangles that would compose each of the diamonds in the middle of the tower.


----------



## xing lin

Finally got around to updating my rendering to show the official design!








Base photograph by Dimitry B (CC BY 2.0)


----------



## ArikArikArik

Great job! Altough I liked it better before the change, Foster took a little miss.


----------



## kenamour

https://forum.newyorkyimby.com/t/new-york-270-park-ave-1-388-ft-70-floors/4189/2082


----------



## kenamour

update


----------



## UrbanImpact

kenamour said:


> update
> View attachment 3427812


That picture demonstrates why the Helmsley Building is a legendary classic chic skyscraper.


----------



## Zaz965

indeed, with a gorgeous green roof


----------



## Jorge vlc




----------



## CNTower246810

I was waiting for this, we have vertical movement again up to the column splice for the 16th floor. One can forget how tall the floors are after being on the smaller mechanical and brace floors for over a month. These coming floors will be interesting to watch on the Park Ave side as this is where the atrium is with the setback capping it. If one floor is built up each week, as there are only 4 floors to the setback, we should see construction on the setback by the end of July or early August.

In terms of other progress, fireproofing has begun on the 2nd trading floor. But for only seeing progress on the façade, I suspect around October/November that the tower will rise out of view of this particular camera and then the Midtown Empire State Building camera will be used to track live vertical progress outside of photos.


----------



## skcr

By* xing lin *https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=9665085&postcount=3052


----------



## Hudson11

North from Empire State Building by Jack R, on Flickr


----------



## ZeusUpsistos

Despite some valiant efforts, it fails miserably at hiding behind 383 Madison.


----------



## Lincolnlover2005

ZeusUpsistos said:


> Despite some valiant efforts, it fails miserably at hiding behind 383 Madison.


Don’t worry, it’ll soon tower over Madison!


----------



## NanoRay

ZeusUpsistos said:


> Despite some valiant efforts, it fails miserably at hiding behind 383 Madison.


270 Park Avenue: I’m going to eat you.
383 Madison Avenue: Hell no.
later…
383 Madison Avenue: Oh sh*t!


----------



## NewYorkCity76

NanoRay said:


> 270 Park Avenue: I’m going to eat you.
> 383 Madison Avenue: Hell no.
> later…
> 383 Madison Avenue: Oh sh*t!


later…
343 Madison Avenue: Don't forget me rising as well
383 Madison Avenue: Oh no you won't
a few years later...
383 Madison Avenue: Oh shoot, here we go again


----------



## perheps

Huh? You have good story like Saturday Live Night? tell them


----------



## Twopsy

Actually 383 Madison got lucky that it was completed before Bear Stearns went bankrupt.


----------



## Lincolnlover2005

Twopsy said:


> Actually 383 Madison got lucky that it was completed before Bear Stearns went bankrupt.


And what a building to go out with!


----------



## Lincolnlover2005

NewYorkCity76 said:


> later…
> 343 Madison Avenue: Don't forget me rising as well
> 383 Madison Avenue: Oh no you won't
> a few years later...
> 383 Madison Avenue: Oh shoot, here we go again


343 Madison Ave has had its height changed to 780 feet! 😭 it’s only 25 feet taller now


----------



## NewYorkCity76

Lincolnlover2005 said:


> 343 Madison Ave has had its height changed to 780 feet! 😭 it’s only 25 feet taller now


A little off topic, but is that height reduction really official?


----------



## MalachaiAC

Per NYguy:
Good to see those cranes on the skyline.



SEPTEMBER 16, 2022




























Per the NY Walking Show


----------



## Hudson11

NYC aerial iPhone shot by Daniel Piraino, on Flickr


----------



## dansokvi

New York is the unofficial capital of the planet, because since the beginning of the foundation of it (She), almost impossible fiction has been created with the hardest work and unimaginable effort


----------



## streetscapeer

__
http://instagr.am/p/Ci_F4Clrlww/


----------



## ArchGuy1

spectre000 said:


> Repairing the Pentagon and building a corporate office tower are very different situations.


The Empire State Building was constructed in just 13 months and that was in 1931 with technology much less advanced than today. This was also despite the fact that building permits were still required back then and building code requirements had to be met.


----------



## spectre000

ArchGuy1 said:


> The Empire State Building was constructed in just 13 months and that was in 1931 with technology much less advanced than today. This was also despite the fact that building permits were still required back then and building code requirements had to be met.


Vastly different times. OSHA wasn’t a thing until 1971. If it had been, five workers probably wouldn’t have died building the ESB.


----------



## perheps

423 metres 60 floors? i feeling like 70 floors 
It's rooftop setback around 388 metres? that's so thickest each floors like 21 feet (6.5 metres) per floor for 60 floors?


----------



## MalachaiAC

perheps said:


> 423 metres 60 floors? i feeling like 70 floors
> It's rooftop setback around 388 metres? that's so thickest each floors like 21 feet (6.5 metres) per floor for 60 floors?


Floor heights aren't consistent across the entire building.


----------



## ArchGuy1

Five dea


spectre000 said:


> Vastly different times. OSHA wasn’t a thing until 1971. If it had been, five workers probably wouldn’t have died building the ESB.


Five deaths was still a very low number for the time. Furthermore, the Chrysler Building was built very fast as well and it's construction speed was similar to the Empire State Building. The Chrysler Building had no deaths during it's construction and all of this was despite the fact technology was less advanced, the fast speed of construction, building permits, and code requirements still in place.


----------



## spectre000

ArchGuy1 said:


> Five dea
> Five deaths was still a very low number for the time. Furthermore, the Chrysler Building was built very fast as well and it's construction speed was similar to the Empire State Building. The Chrysler Building had no deaths during it's construction and all of this was despite the fact technology was less advanced, the fast speed of construction, building permits, and code requirements still in place.


I’m sure there were plenty of skyscrapers built super fast with few to zero deaths. And it could be done today. But construction methods aren’t going back to way they were 90 years ago. OSHA isn’t going to remove requirements like safety lines for workers, bureaucratic oversight, cocoon systems, etc. Other then a national security emergency, there isn’t going to be a serious need for high speed construction.


----------



## Redzio

ArchGuy1 said:


> Five dea
> Five deaths was still a very low number for the time. Furthermore, the Chrysler Building was built very fast as well and it's construction speed was similar to the Empire State Building. The Chrysler Building had no deaths during it's construction and all of this was despite the fact technology was less advanced, the fast speed of construction, building permits, and code requirements still in place.


There was way more deaths. 5 is just official number, some sources claims 40-100.


----------



## Hudson11

Let's keep the discussion centered on this building, please. 









JC_Heights on the YIMBY forums


----------



## Hudson11

New York, Manhattan October 2022 by MaxMedia Studios New York - @valeryshpakphotography, on Flickr


----------



## dansokvi

the courage of engineering realized here is enchanting


----------



## Daniiif

YIMBYgram


----------



## skcr

How terrible the early design was, and how beautiful the final design.


----------



## Lincolnlover2005

skcr said:


> How terrible the early design was, and how beautiful the final design.
> View attachment 4099401


If only it was taller


----------



## skcr

Lincolnlover2005 said:


> If only it was taller


I thought about it, and came to the conclusion that this is not the design that should be the highest tower. with its final height, it will be in harmony with One Vanderbilt. And the dominant feature of the ensemble will be 175 Park Avenue.

by *xing lin *


----------



## ArchGuy1

Lincolnlover2005 said:


> If only it was taller


Even better if the top floor had a public observation deck.


----------



## Hudson11

ArchGuy1 said:


> Even better if the top floor had a public observation deck.


knock it off with the observatory talk. It's not happening here. 


2022 New York November Fog-12.jpg by Steve, on Flickr


----------



## Hudson11

photo by Tectonic


----------



## atlasmike

My Aunt worked for Manufactures Hanover in the original building in the 80's and 90's.


----------



## THT-United

Hudson11 said:


> Let's keep the discussion centered on this building, please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JC_Heights on the YIMBY forums


Unique supporting pillar design - those slanted pillars make the building look like it’s floating…


----------



## NanoRay

270 Park: Where are my damn glasses?


----------



## SydneyCarton

Also, the design permits the development of a substantial plaza with greenspace and waterfalls.


----------



## NiceLapis

This is an old photo from roughly 8 months ago, but it provides a cool top-down view so I figured that I should share it.
Credit: Laurent Bossard (LinkedIn)


----------



## Peter G

I’m from Australia, and if this building was being built here, there would be at least 20 photos a day. Seems New Yorkers are too busy to bother.


----------



## A Chicagoan

From the live webcam, posted by SMCYB on YIMBY Forums


----------



## streetscapeer

Will soon break the plateau:









@thebaldwhiteguy on instagram


----------



## xing lin

Rendering based on a photo by NYGuy on SSP


----------



## philip

To be honest, it looks like a big middle finger................


----------



## Ecopolisia

philip said:


> To be honest, it looks like a big middle finger................


Hmm?A nicely huge cobber-cladded light-browned one,though..Lol..I'm just saying..😅🙃🤘🤟🌈💎


----------



## DeaconG

philip said:


> To be honest, it looks like a big middle finger................


I seem to recall after the Twin Towers fell, someone sent a graphic similar to this to replace the towers...


----------



## Zaz965

philip said:


> To be honest, it looks like a big middle finger................


I dislike this kind of shape. these buildings should have a thick section in the entire extension.


----------



## Saberwolf_99

Zaz965 said:


> I dislike this kind of shape. these buildings should have a thick section in the entire extension.


Sounds like the japanese skyscrapers lol


----------



## Zaz965

Saberwolf_99 said:


> Sounds like the japanese skyscrapers lol


not necessarily. New York has already a bulky, huge, thick building: 55 water street 
I can't believe how huge he is. 
55 Water Street by Martin Jones, on Flickr


----------



## NewYorkCity76

Well, this new 270 Park Avenue is already bulky, takes up the whole city block, and even thicker and taller than the former World Trade Center by roof height.

A little off topic but 50 and 30 Hudson Yards is pretty bulky as well


----------



## Lincolnlover2005

DeaconG said:


> I seem to recall after the Twin Towers fell, someone sent a graphic similar to this to replace the towers...


Oh you mean this old gem?


----------



## DeaconG

Lincolnlover2005 said:


> Oh you mean this old gem?
> View attachment 4191714


That's the one!


----------



## Lincolnlover2005

DeaconG said:


> That's the one!


Admittedly It does look like JP


----------



## Hudson11

Sunset by nycmayorsoffice, on Flickr


----------



## trustevil

Lincolnlover2005 said:


> Oh you mean this old gem?
> View attachment 4191714


that's mecca clock tower lol


----------



## Saberwolf_99

Zaz965 said:


> not necessarily. New York has already a bulky, huge, thick building: 55 water street
> I can't believe how huge he is.
> 55 Water Street by Martin Jones, on Flickr


Those really thick buildings are my absolute favorite ones, the vertical lines running along it give it an imposing and very official look. Especially whens there many of them together, they form this monumental mountain look of concrete and steel. These types of buildings feel like something you would see in Akira or Blade runner.


----------



## Daniiif

https://twitter.com/EmpireStateBldg


----------



## Hudson11

cranes starting to rise up on the skyline behind 383 Madison









Gary Hershorn


----------



## meliksah

A lot of people are about to notice this building.


----------



## Zaz965

a huge monster is rising


----------



## FKFTKing

Hudson11 said:


> cranes starting to rise up on the skyline behind 383 Madison
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gary Hershorn


WOW, New York's Holly Trinity is about to happen.


----------



## Hudson11

FKFTKing said:


> WOW, New York's Holly Trinity is about to happen.


Can't forget 175 Park. It will appear nearly as tall as the Empire State Building's antenna from this angle.









NY Yimby


----------



## Zaz965

thanks. 175 Park won't be a skinny building like billionaire's row


----------



## nenad_kgdc

175 Park looks amazing, will have huge impact on skyline.


----------



## Hudson11

270 Park Ave by Edward Hand, on Flickr


----------



## Hudson11

photos from NY YIMBY


----------



## spectre000

Fire proofing is coming along nicely. It can’t be too much longer before the glass appears.


----------



## xing lin

Original photo by mrlaugh on Flickr (CC BY-SA 2.0)


----------



## LeMoN-SK

xing lin said:


> Original photo by mrlaugh on Flickr (CC BY-SA 2.0)


Nice one! The skyline in this part of the city is really going to be totally transformed (just like other clusters around Manhattan are). Poor Chrysler though!  For me, it is still one of the most beautiful skyscrapers in the world.

I don't recognize the building nearest to Empire State, please, can you tell me its name? Thank you.


----------



## Twopsy

LeMoN-SK said:


> I don't recognize the building nearest to Empire State, please, can you tell me its name? Thank you.


That is Penn 15.


----------



## DellL

xing lin said:


> Original photo by mrlaugh on Flickr (CC BY-SA 2.0)


Skyscraper at the middle screams that there should be a spire. And its very fat.


----------



## skcr

DellL said:


> Skyscraper at the middle screams that there should be a spire. And its very fat.


It will be thinner. This is old version


----------



## xing lin

skcr said:


> It will be thinner. This is old version


I am not sure about whether the floorplates themselves have changed in dimension-- TKD did a rough calculation based on the two renderings and they seem to be about the same thickness. The newer design may just look thinner because the setbacks and column spacing have changed in proportion.


----------



## Cadaeib

LeMoN-SK said:


> Nice one! The skyline in this part of the city is really going to be totally transformed (just like other clusters around Manhattan are). Poor Chrysler though!  For me, it is still one of the most beautiful skyscrapers in the world.
> 
> I don't recognize the building nearest to Empire State, please, can you tell me its name? Thank you.


It's in the soul of New York to be a city in perpetual change. The Chrysler Building is almost 100 years old; however it is true that it would be good to preserve as much as possible the points of view from which it's visible. 
The roof of this building is clearly an allusion the Chyrlser Building, a pity that it does not take up the tapered spire ! 
Air rights I guess.


----------



## Braudian88

Cadaeib said:


> It's in the soul of New York to be a city in perpetual change. The Chrysler Building is almost 100 years old; however it is true that it would be good to preserve as much as possible the points of view from which it's visible.
> The roof of this building is clearly an allusion the Chyrlser Building, a pity that it does not take up the tapered spire !
> Air rights I guess.


No, as far as I can remember, air rights only involve the floors you can build, not the height, although it is restricted to 2000 feet by JFK


----------



## speedy1979

Braudian88 said:


> No, as far as I can remember, air rights only involve the floors you can build, not the height, although it is restricted to 2000 feet by JFK


JFK or FAA?


----------



## FKFTKing

DellL said:


> Skyscraper at the middle screams that there should be a spire. And its very fat.


Indeed, if they keep the currently dimentions it will ruins NYC's skyline.


----------



## MalachaiAC

FKFTKing said:


> Indeed, if they keep the currently dimentions it will ruins NYC's skyline.


No it won't lol wut. Even if I'm disappointed about the height cuts this is still one of the best proposals the cities had


----------



## Saberwolf_99

FKFTKing said:


> Indeed, if they keep the currently dimentions it will ruins NYC's skyline.


Id have to disagree. The thicker buildings like one vanderbilt, 270 park and grand hyatt are a blessing and actually add/have a visible impact on the NYC skyline unlike the skinnier ones on billionaires row. For so long Midtown has been plagued with a plateaued skyline, buildings like 270 and grand hyatt are going to help break up that trend by lot and actually help give this city a dynamic skyline in midtown as can be seen by xings edit on the photo. Chicago is a good example of a city that has a dynamic skyline with tall and shorter buildings.


----------



## Zaz965

by the way, there is a thick building that I like a lot: 55 water street  
55 Water Street by Martin Jones, on Flickr


----------



## anthoni

How the core spaces are placed in a building this thick? There are no windows, ventilation, natural lights etc.

Anyone with the blueprints?


----------



## FelixMadero

The Penni6 will be so ugly?


----------



## skcr




----------



## NiceLapis

NiceLapis said:


> This is an old photo from roughly 8 months ago, but it provides a cool top-down view so I figured that I should share it.
> Credit: Laurent Bossard (LinkedIn)
> View attachment 4163381


Does anybody know where the core will be in this building? There doesn't seem to be any central opening as seen in this picture.


----------



## Hudson11

NiceLapis said:


> Does anybody know where the core will be in this building? There doesn't seem to be any central opening as seen in this picture.


There is no core, this building sits above a platform covering the Grand Central Terminal train shed so a central concrete core could not be accommodated. The weight of the building is supported by columns below the surface and much of the original building's foundation.

blue = above grade. dark green = underground.


----------



## streetscapeer

Source











Source


----------



## xing lin

Photomontage of 270 viewed from the Summit, photo by NYGuy:


----------



## Hudson11

NYC 2022 by Chris Harrison, on Flickr


NYC 2022 by Chris Harrison, on Flickr


----------



## Braudian88

speedy1979 said:


> JFK or FAA?


Of course it is the FAA as an institution, but just like JFK because there pass the routes of approach to the airport, so I'm not so bad


----------

